solarisx86 : Messages : 50114-50143 of 50143

I saw references to a PSARC case for it and some bugs to track it, but
they were not public.

Be nice to have - I would rather add some external disks on my home
server than rebuild the case to fit some more.

Cheers,
	 Adrian


Carol & Mike Riley wrote:
>
>
> Adrian Saul wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > I would hazard a guess that it is because Solaris does not yet support
>  > SATA port multipliers so there is no pure SATA way to connect. The SAS
>  > interposer allows you to have a bus to get to the disks.
>  >
>  > Just my take - no suggestion that this is factual.
>
> It was factual when I was let go from Sun in 2008. Not sure if they don't
> support multipliers still or not. Even if they do now, the system was
> probably designed for when they did not.
>
> Mike
>
>

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (4)

#50115

From: "iaswingkid" <iaswingkid@...>
Date: Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: MEDIA: Ellison: Sunacle is an IBM killer

iaswingkid

Offline

Well, how much cheaper?  I'm always surprised when people look at initial cost
as the only factor, although it's fairly common.  Initial cost is usually one of
the smaller costs in the big picture.  The group I work with that's running a
lot of Solaris servers is a research group, and if there's a problem, and they
don't deliver, they may not get further money.  If a Sun server costs a bit
more, I would say it's worth it, because the support is probably going to be
better.

Our experiences with Dell have been poor.  We don't care for the hardware.  You
want to run Linux on that?  Good luck talking to someone who knows anything. 
Most of their people don't know there's anything besides Windows.  (That's based
on my personal experience)  I can't imagine you'd get very good support if you
were running Solaris.

IBM?  We don't really consider them because the cost is too high.

We don't do Solaris on anything but Sun branded hardware.  The x86 machines have
brought us back to Sun.  SPARC systems were just not price-performance
competitive, even with the matching grant program.

--- In solarisx86@yahoogroups.com, Brian Richman <bjrichus@...> wrote:
> As for the latest Sun x86 hardware... so what? It's commodity gear now, so
lowest price wins.
>
> EVERY TIME we give Sun a chance to bid (did that this month too), they NEVER
come in cheaper than Dell, HP (I don't like HP's attitude) or even <<SHUDDER>>
IBM...
>
> :-(

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (28)

#50116

From: "iaswingkid" <iaswingkid@...>
Date: Fri Nov 6, 2009 10:27 pm
Subject: unable to create new boot environment

iaswingkid

Offline

I am trying to create a new boot environment on a Solaris 10 u6 machine that was
previously UFS.  i migrated it a while back to a ZFS root filesystem.  Currently
it has one BE.  My intention is to upgrade to Solaris 10 10/09 (u8).  Here's
what I get:
-bash-3.00# lucreate -n zfs-root-u8
Checking GRUB menu...
System has findroot enabled GRUB
Analyzing system configuration.
ERROR: All datasets within a BE must have the canmount value set to noauto
ERROR: Cannot create the internal configuration file for the current boot
environment <zfs-root-u6>.

I'm fairly new to live upgrade and I'm not sure what datasets it's talking
about.  Could someone explain this please?

#50117

From: Patch Nag <patchnag@...>
Date: Sat Nov 7, 2009 2:35 am
Subject: New Solaris Patches available at riddleware.com 20091106

x86patchnag

Offline

119575-02    Obsoleted by: 140861-01 SunOS 5.10_x86: su patch

#50118

From: Laurent Blume <laurent@...>
Date: Sat Nov 7, 2009 7:41 am
Subject: IPF config edition

laurentelanor

Online Now

Hello all,

I know there are some IPF config file editor around, does someone have
first-hand experience with any? I'd like something reliable to run on
S10.

Thanks,

Laurent

#50119

From: Patch Nag <patchnag@...>
Date: Sun Nov 8, 2009 2:35 am
Subject: New Solaris Patches available at riddleware.com 20091107

x86patchnag

Offline

137081-04    SunOS 5.10_x86: libpng Patch

#50120

From: Matt Banks <mattbanks@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 9:58 pm
Subject: SCSI initiator ID

mattwbanks

Offline

Does anyone know how to change a SCSI initiator id in Solaris x86?  It's easy on
SPARC, but the lack of OBP/nvram takes away all of my directly transferrable
options but the /kernel/drv/xxx.conf option, and I haven't messed with that
since the e450/D1000 days using the glm.conf driver, which we used to do all the
time.

Seeing as how I asked this question on the list nearly 5 years ago, I'm guessing
no one is going to respond, so I'll try asking again. :)

TIA,
matt

(As a side note, it's because I'd like to attach an SL24 tape library to two
separate hosts.  It works fine with FC, but SCSI is definitely cheaper all
around.  I know we could just backup over the network, but we'd prefer direct
access to the tape array.)

#50121

From: Phillip Bruce <pbbruce@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:10 pm
Subject: Re: SCSI initiator ID

okiebruce

Offline

Matt Banks wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how to change a SCSI initiator id in Solaris x86?
> It's easy on SPARC, but the lack of OBP/nvram takes away all of my
> directly transferrable options but the /kernel/drv/xxx.conf option,
> and I haven't messed with that since the e450/D1000 days using the
> glm.conf driver, which we used to do all the time.
>
> Seeing as how I asked this question on the list nearly 5 years ago,
> I'm guessing no one is going to respond, so I'll try asking again. :)
>
> TIA,
> matt
>
> (As a side note, it's because I'd like to attach an SL24 tape library
> to two separate hosts. It works fine with FC, but SCSI is definitely
> cheaper all around. I know we could just backup over the network, but
> we'd prefer direct access to the tape array.)
>
>
What you have to do is configure the HBA your using. Wait until the
system boots and then do a ^ Q or ^S depending vendor
to bring up the HBA Bios program. There should be a setting in there
that will defined SCSI initator.

Phillip

#50122

From: Phillip Bruce <pbbruce@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:13 pm
Subject: Re: SCSI initiator ID

okiebruce

Offline

Matt Banks wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how to change a SCSI initiator id in Solaris x86?
> It's easy on SPARC, but the lack of OBP/nvram takes away all of my
> directly transferrable options but the /kernel/drv/xxx.conf option,
> and I haven't messed with that since the e450/D1000 days using the
> glm.conf driver, which we used to do all the time.
>
> Seeing as how I asked this question on the list nearly 5 years ago,
> I'm guessing no one is going to respond, so I'll try asking again. :)
>
> TIA,
> matt
>
> (As a side note, it's because I'd like to attach an SL24 tape library
> to two separate hosts. It works fine with FC, but SCSI is definitely
> cheaper all around. I know we could just backup over the network, but
> we'd prefer direct access to the tape array.)
>
>
I forgot to add check the vold.conf file it will contain that as well
see below:

(4.4) What are SCSI IDs expected by Solaris x86?

These are the typical values for SCSI devices. For tape and CD-ROM,
these are the defaults used in the /etc/vold.conf file for controlling
the vold mounter. You can set them to other ID's but remember to adjust
the vold.conf file to the new values.

Boot drive ID 0
Second drive ID 1
Third drive ID 2
Reserved by Solaris ID 3
Tape ID 4
CDROM ID 6
SCSI controller ID 7


Phillip

#50123

From: Jeremy Kister <solarisx86-01@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:46 am
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

yes_i_kister

Offline

On 11/2/2009 12:15 PM, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> # format -e c12t1d0
> selecting c12t1d0
> [disk formatted]
> /dev/dsk/c3t11d0s0 is part of active ZFS pool dbzpool. Please see zpool(1M).

So I just installed a brand new disk in c12t1.  I still get this error, so
it clearly has nothing to do with pre-existing zfs labels on the disk.

i've tried devfsadm -C (and disks/drvconfig).  Any new help ?

--

Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./

#50124

From: John Taylor <jbt.oldemail@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:05 am
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

The_H1ghlander

Offline

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jeremy Kister
<solarisx86-01@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/2/2009 12:15 PM, Jeremy Kister wrote:
> > # format -e c12t1d0
> > selecting c12t1d0
> > [disk formatted]
> > /dev/dsk/c3t11d0s0 is part of active ZFS pool dbzpool. Please see zpool(1M).
>
> So I just installed a brand new disk in c12t1. I still get this error, so
> it clearly has nothing to do with pre-existing zfs labels on the disk.
>
> i've tried devfsadm -C (and disks/drvconfig). Any new help ?


You haven't rebooted have you?

I just had one of my coworkers run into the same thing after he changed
a few luns on an EMC frame and the old format information was still there.

you might want to unconfigure and deactivate the sata port that disk
is in, rescan, delete the dev links, and then reconfigure the sata port
and disk and do a devfsadm -vC

Hope this helps

Ben

#50125

From: Adrian Saul <asaul@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:57 am
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

sgtbundy

Offline

Did my suggestion about checking the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file help out?

Cheers,
	 Adrian


Jeremy Kister wrote:
>
>
> On 11/2/2009 12:15 PM, Jeremy Kister wrote:
>  > # format -e c12t1d0
>  > selecting c12t1d0
>  > [disk formatted]
>  > /dev/dsk/c3t11d0s0 is part of active ZFS pool dbzpool. Please see
> zpool(1M).
>
> So I just installed a brand new disk in c12t1. I still get this error, so
> it clearly has nothing to do with pre-existing zfs labels on the disk.
>
> i've tried devfsadm -C (and disks/drvconfig). Any new help ?
>
> --
>
> Jeremy Kister
> http://jeremy.kister.net./ <http://jeremy.kister.net./>
>
>

#50126

From: Jeremy Kister <solarisx86-01@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:48 pm
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

yes_i_kister

Offline

On 11/14/2009 6:57 AM, Adrian Saul wrote:
> Did my suggestion about checking the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache file help out?

it taught me about the file, but unfortunately c12t1 isnt a string anywhere
in the file :-/



--

Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./

#50127

From: Jeremy Kister <solarisx86-01@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

yes_i_kister

Offline

On 11/14/2009 1:05 AM, John Taylor wrote:
> You haven't rebooted have you?

it's a very important production host; i can't easily reboot.

> you might want to unconfigure and deactivate the sata port that disk
> is in, rescan, delete the dev links, and then reconfigure the sata port
> and disk and do a devfsadm -vC

just fyi, this is scsi u320 on 6 lsi 1030 controllers.

i did delete the dev links and devfsadm, but they came back the same.  i
thought about nuking path_to_inst (or even the mpt stuff in path_to_inst),
but that scared me.

--

Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./

#50128

From: John Taylor <jbt.oldemail@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

The_H1ghlander

Offline

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Jeremy Kister
<solarisx86-01@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/14/2009 1:05 AM, John Taylor wrote:
> > You haven't rebooted have you?
>
> it's a very important production host; i can't easily reboot.

I figured as much.

> > you might want to unconfigure and deactivate the sata port that disk
> > is in, rescan, delete the dev links, and then reconfigure the sata port
> > and disk and do a devfsadm -vC
>
> just fyi, this is scsi u320 on 6 lsi 1030 controllers.

well, it still stands to reason if cfgadm -al shows the device, that
you should try to remove it. I would take out the device, see if
you can remove it with cfgadm -c unconfigure (check man page
for exact syntax)

> i did delete the dev links and devfsadm, but they came back the same. i
> thought about nuking path_to_inst (or even the mpt stuff in path_to_inst),
> but that scared me.

have you detached or removed the failed disk from the zpool?

Ben

#50129

From: "Oliver Jones" <myself@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 8:51 pm
Subject: RE: Certification Guidance

joovilhar

Offline

Personally, I would disagree. At least, given the employer demand for
certifications over here.

If you are doing the certification to find yourself a job, look at what
certifications are being asked for, by people who are posting jobs. SCSA
certification is mentioned often, and Sun Cluster 3.2 certification is quite
popular too (I have Solaris 9, 10 & Cluster 3.2), but I have yet to see
*one* job ad requiring or listing as a nice-to-have, either SCNA or SCSECA.
However, you can barely look for a sysadmin post without stumbling across
all the references to CCNA / CCNP, so I never bothered with the Sun
networking certification - I'm on track to becoming Cisco certified by the
end of the year.

I've also worked in security and banking - and, according to those in the
industry, Sun security certification isn't worth the paper it's written on:
If you do not have CISSP, you had better get it if you want to be taken
seriously. (Interestingly enough, ISC2 do not even recognise the SCSECA as a
worthy certification - if you had done an MCSE, you could get a year off the
experience requirements for becoming a CISSP, but *not* if you hold Sun
certification!) Corollary: Sun networking or security certifications are not
valued by the industry.

My advice: Ditch the Sun exams beyond SCSA and SCSA for Cluster 3.x, and do
Cisco for networking and CISSP for security. The CISSP exam is no pushover
(you will spend a day in the exam hall - and you would be very wise to bring
a packed lunch.) However, it is the gold standard in security certification,
and - most importantly - it will get you hired.

Oliver.

________________________________

From: solarisx86@yahoogroups.com [mailto:solarisx86@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Phillip Bruce
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 7:21 PM
To: solarisx86@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [solarisx86] Certification Guidance

praveen k wrote:
>
>
> Hi All,
> I do not know whether this is the right place to ask this question,
> please forgive me.
> My question is, I have cleared SCSA I and SCSA II certification. What
> should be my next Sun Certification. Which certification will be in
> demand in future. Please guide me.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
Goto this page:

http://www.sun.com/training/certification/solaris/index.xml
<http://www.sun.com/training/certification/solaris/index.xml>

That clearly shows the path you should take.

Phillip

#50130

From: Jeremy Kister <solarisx86-01@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 11:24 pm
Subject: Re: Solaris disk confusion ?

yes_i_kister

Offline

On 11/14/2009 9:50 AM, John Taylor wrote:
> well, it still stands to reason if cfgadm -al shows the device, that
> you should try to remove it. I would take out the device, see if
> you can remove it with cfgadm -c unconfigure (check man page
> for exact syntax)

i'll work on that.

> have you detached or removed the failed disk from the zpool?

there are no failed drives.

i have a bunch of disks in a zfs pool called dbzpool.
i'm trying to create a new zfs pool called newpool with a bunch of
different disks.

when i 'zfs create newpool c12t1d0' the system complains that c3t11d0 is
part of dbzpool.  c12t1d0 has never been part of dbzpool. (c12t0, c12t2,
c12t3, ..., all work fine - it's just c12t1).

--

Jeremy Kister
http://jeremy.kister.net./

#50131

From: "Deniz" <solariswiki@...>
Date: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:31 pm
Subject: Installing Software in a Live Upgrade environment

fh462

Offline

Hi,
We've been trying to figure out if it is possible to install software that are
in non-pkg format in a Live Upgrade Environment maybe after doing an lumount?

Or does luupgrade have an option to install non-pkg formats?

Thanks.

#50132

From: Adrian Saul <asaul@...>
Date: Tue Nov 17, 2009 10:31 am
Subject: Re: Installing Software in a Live Upgrade environment

sgtbundy

Offline

Might be worth a shot trying it with lumount and chroot, depending on
how smart/dumb the application installation is.

But thats the nice thing with live upgrade, you can always blow it away
and try again.

Cheers,
	 Adrian

Deniz wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> We've been trying to figure out if it is possible to install software
> that are in non-pkg format in a Live Upgrade Environment maybe after
> doing an lumount?
>
> Or does luupgrade have an option to install non-pkg formats?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

#50133

From: John Taylor <jbt.oldemail@...>
Date: Fri Nov 20, 2009 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: Installing Software in a Live Upgrade environment

The_H1ghlander

Offline

Especially with zfs root.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Adrian Saul <asaul@...> wrote:
> Might be worth a shot trying it with lumount and chroot, depending on
> how smart/dumb the application installation is.
>
> But thats the nice thing with live upgrade, you can always blow it away
> and try again.
>
> Cheers,
> � � � �Adrian
>
>
> Deniz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>> We've been trying to figure out if it is possible to install software
>> that are in non-pkg format in a Live Upgrade Environment maybe after
>> doing an lumount?
>>
>> Or does luupgrade have an option to install non-pkg formats?
>>
>> Thanks.

#50134

From: Patch Nag <patchnag@...>
Date: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:35 am
Subject: New Solaris Patches available at riddleware.com 20091121

x86patchnag

Offline

141525-06    SunOS 5.10_x86: ssh and openssl patch