Darren J Moffat wrote: > Bart Smaalders wrote: > > Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> Jerry Gilliam wrote: > >>> Proposal > >>> ---------- > >>> Support a command-line argument to bootadm(1M) to specify the client's > >>> platform implementation for boot administration of a client. > >>> > >>> Analogous updates to the create_ramdisk and extract_boot_filelist > >>> utilities, invoked by bootadm, are needed. > >>> > >>> The diskless administration tools such as smosservice(1M) are > >>> aware of a client's platform and can invoke bootadm appropriately. > >>> The miniroot construction process uses the root_archive tool > >>> and would not be impacted by this change. > >> > >> What are the valid values for platform ? > >> > >> In particular for x86 does this allow making a distinction between > >> "i386" and "amd64" ? > >> > > > > There is no difference between the two; Solaris installs both 32bit and > > 64 bit binaries > > when installing Solaris x86. > > Yes but you could have a smaller boot archive on systems not capable of > running 64 bit (and also likely to have less memory) if a distinction on > platform was allowed.
We already have split 32-bit / 64-bit boot archives on i386: % ls -l /platform/i86pc/boot_archive /platform/i86pc/amd64/boot_archive -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 28719104 Mar 25 19:25 /platform/i86pc/amd64/boot_archive -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 26744832 Mar 25 19:25 /platform/i86pc/boot_archive The i386 boot_archives are compressed; on sparc the boot_archive is uncompressed. So that a sparc archive is much bigger than an i386 boot_archive: % ls -l /platform/sun4u/boot_archive -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 71280640 Mar 20 20:41 /platform/sun4u/boot_archive
