Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 06:09:23PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree. The namespace issues are important. At the very least IPS needs to deal sanely with: - two or more pkgs in one repository with actions I assume you mean actions which overlap? This may or may not be an issue, depending on what packages a user wants to install. It would be nice if we could (optionally) catch this at publication time and that's something we may work towards in the future. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of third party software delivering conflicting actions, but at least we could be self-consistent. I don't necessarily think it a bug to allow pkgs with conflicting actions into a repository _as long as_ they are treated as mutually exclusive (including from incorporations). - a user trying to install one or more pkgs whose actions would conflict with those a pkg that's already installed Known bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3822 One thing that's holding this up is that there are issues with the current nevada pacakges delivering conflicts (see the dependent bugs of that bug). Until we deliver a self-consistent set of packages, IPS is somewhat constrained on what we can do. Understood. Until then I think /opt must continue to be the place where SW is delivered that is not integrated into OpenSolaris (with /contrib being a repository of wannabe integrated packages. And when these issues are addressed then the /opt issue can be revisited (though I think I'd still want to see a registry in place before we really kiss /opt goodbye). Nico -- ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] gdm/X does not start
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:29 -0700, Alan Coopersmith According to those logs, your X server started and is running on your AST service processor/remote KVM. Alan, I believe that I am running into the same issue on a Sun Fire x2270. I've got the service processor on the machine as well. The machine boots, but the text prompt is all that is displayed at the console. How would I make the X server start on the regular display if I am having the same issue? Is there any other display on these machines? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the hardware, and don't really know. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering There is a VGA connector on the back of the machine (that I have a monitor plugged into). This page lists the video and graphics controller: http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/validateUser.do?target=Systems/SunFireX2270/spec Video One VGA 16MB - 1600x1200 @ 60Hz Graphics controller ASPEED AST2000 - 2D graphics controller embedded in Service Processor Support remote console at a resolution up to 1600x1200x16b...@60hz This displays the text console when the machine boots after install. Looking at the services, they all seem to be running (including gdm). When I booted the machine from a USB image of 2009.06, the GUI desktop was displayed on the console. After installing, only the text login screen is displayed there. Thanks for responding so quickly. I appreciate it. Bill. ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] gdm/X does not start
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:21 -0700, Alan Coopersmith alan.coopersm...@sun.com wrote: opensola...@myspamfilter.fastmail.fm wrote: On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:29 -0700, Alan Coopersmith According to those logs, your X server started and is running on your AST service processor/remote KVM. Alan, I believe that I am running into the same issue on a Sun Fire x2270. I've got the service processor on the machine as well. The machine boots, but the text prompt is all that is displayed at the console. How would I make the X server start on the regular display if I am having the same issue? Is there any other display on these machines? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with the hardware, and don't really know. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering There is a VGA connector on the back of the machine (that I have a monitor plugged into). This page lists the video and graphics controller: http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/validateUser.do?target=Systems/SunFireX2270/spec Video One VGA 16MB - 1600x1200 @ 60Hz Graphics controller ASPEED AST2000 - 2D graphics controller embedded in Service Processor Support remote console at a resolution up to 1600x1200x16b...@60hz So that sounds like it's the same video chipset that drives the remote console/service processor, not a separate device, just another output for that same device. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering Any idea how I would change the output screen of the X server on boot? After doing some more quick research, I get the feeling that I need to tell X to use :0.1 . I'm not real sure how to do that though... Maybe the following will at least let me get to the GUI login from the console: # export DISPLAY=:0.1 # pfexec svcadm restart gdm I'll try that tomorrow from the console and see what happens. That will tell me something I hope. I have tried restarting gdm before (earlier today), and the screen flashes a few times (3) over a few seconds. While this is happening, the console is not responsive. After the third flash, the console becomes active again, but no GUI. I'll try and generate a config file (Xorg -configure) and take a look at what is in there. Maybe that will give me a clue. Bill. ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] opensolaris2009.06 slow boot
problem solved! actually i had not disabled the floppy drive in the BIOS (i don't have a floppy drive). The hal daemon was trying to access the floppy drive because it was enabled in BIOS. the same thing was probably happening in the older version of OpenSolaris. But in this release, hal was added as a dependency to the gdm. so i couldn't get the login screen until hald returned unsuccessfully. this bug was reported long back: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6294851 thanks to everyone who helped... regards, Nischal E Rao Gilles Gravier wrote: Hi! This seems like a situation I've had where the automounter waits for some networking timemout before ketting GDM start. Are your homes automounted? Try disabling the automunter? Gilles --- Original message --- From: Nischal nischal@sun.com Cc: indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: 3/6/'09, 18:09 Nice solution... :) ok... I tried the text boot. the mounting of zfs filesytem and other regular stuff take about 40seconds and then i see the console login prompt for about 1min. and then i am redirected to the graphical login. there are no error messages at login. i guess some unnecessary back ground work goes on at login regards, Nischal E Rao Gilles Gravier wrote: Hum... Solution : shutdown more often than you boot. :) Seriously... I'm on a 1.5 GB RAM Toshiba Tecra M2... and I find it boots just as fast as it always has. Maybe it's waiting on network timeout? Gilles. Nischal wrote: i upgraded my opensolaris from 2008.11 to 2009.06 today and i am really disappointed with boot process. It is painfully slow. On my 2GB ram system it takes about 2 minutes to boot. is there any way to increase the speed? Oh, by the way shutdown is extremely fast. :) -- *Gilles Gravier, CISSP *Government Industry Solutions Architect mailto:gilles.grav...@sun.com Voice : +41 (22) 999 9051 Mobile : +41 (79) 472 8437 Fax : +41 (860) 79 472 8437 E-mail : gilles.grav...@sun.com mailto:gilles.grav...@sun.com *Sun Microsystems* 12 route des Avouillons CH-1196 Gland Switzerland http://www.sun.com/opensource/ SunIM : ggrav...@sun.com http://im-amer.sun.com/ ICQ : 77488526 http://www.icq.com/whitepages/about_me.php?Uin=77488526 AIM : gillesgravier aim:goim?screenname=gillesgravier Y! : ggravier http://profiles.yahoo.com/ggravier Jabber : ggrav...@jabber.org/Gaim http://www.jabber.org/ Skype : ggravier callto://ggravier MSN : gil...@gravier.org http://members.msn.com/gil...@gravier.org Google : gilles.grav...@gmail.com mailto://gilles.grav...@gmail.com Sent from a laptop running OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b http://www.opensolaris.org/ using Mozilla Thunderbird http://www.mozilla.com/thunderbird/ (v2.0.0.21) ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] zio_read_data failed in GRUB while trying to boot from compact flash (CF)
James, Can you try removing the 'findroot' line from menu.lst entry. -ethan James Lee wrote: Joseph J VLcek wrote: With rpool imported/mounted can you cat the contents of the GRUB menu.lst file? What does it contain? e.g.: % cat /rpool/boot/grub/menu.lst This question should probably be posted to install-disc...@opensolaris.org Joe Yes, I can cat the file just fine once booted into the livecd: # zpool import rpool # cat /rpool/boot/grub/menu.lst splashimage /boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz background 215ECA timeout 30 default 0 #-- ADDED BY BOOTADM - DO NOT EDIT -- title OpenSolaris 2009.06 findroot (pool_rpool,0,a) bootfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris splashimage /boot/solaris.xpm foreground d25f00 background 115d93 kernel$ /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS,console=graphics module$ /platform/i86pc/$ISADIR/boot_archive #-END BOOTADM Unfortunately, GRUB never gets to a point where it can. ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] zio_read_data failed in GRUB while trying to boot from compact flash (CF)
cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote: Hi James, No answers from me, just some information. The ability to boot from a disk greater than 1 TB integrated last fall and this support is in the OpenSolaris 2009.06 release. I see the same zio_read_data error (boot from install okay, but not from the disk) in this CR: 6843138 can not boot off of a 2.2TB and zfs root The root cause seems to be that the that BIOS is not reporting correct capacity. This CR is fixed in Nevada, build 117. If someone can get you the stage2 binary from build 117, then we would know for sure that is bug is your issue. Thanks Cindy. I think we may be onto something with this. I grabbed c62013fcda99 from hg where this fix was committed and compiled GRUB. I installed the stages like: # installgrub stage1 stage2 /dev/rdsk/c7d0s0 And GRUB actually loaded menu.lst and the splash image! This is the furthest I've gotten so far. Unfortunately, it can't read the kernel now: loading '/platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS,console=graphics' ... cpu: 'GenuineIntel' family 6 model 7 step 7 [BIOS accepted mixed-mode target setting!] zio_read_data failed Error 15: File not found Press any key to continue... Back in GRUB: grub find /platform/i86pc/kernel/unix zio_read_data failed Error 15: File not found So what would cause GRUB to be able to load /rpool/boot/grub/menu.lst fine but not /platform/i86pc/kernel/unix? ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] gdm/X does not start
Bill: Any idea how I would change the output screen of the X server on boot? After doing some more quick research, I get the feeling that I need to tell X to use :0.1 . I'm not real sure how to do that though... GDM does have configuration files in /usr/share/gdm/defaults.conf and /etc/X11/gdm/custom.conf. Here is an example I notice on how you can configure GDM to start up a display using :0.1. This example uses Xephyr, but the principle is the same, I'd think: http://www.michaeltinsay.com/?q=Multiseat-Gutsy-Xephyr-gdm.conf-custom Maybe the following will at least let me get to the GUI login from the console: # export DISPLAY=:0.1 # pfexec svcadm restart gdm I'll try that tomorrow from the console and see what happens. That will tell me something I hope. I have tried restarting gdm before (earlier today), and the screen flashes a few times (3) over a few seconds. While this is happening, the console is not responsive. After the third flash, the console becomes active again, but no GUI. You might try editing /usr/share/gdm/defaults.conf and set Enable=true in the [debug] section and restart GDM. This should cause debug messages from GDM to get echoed to your syslog (/var/adm/messages). These debug messages might help to debug the problem if it is an issue with GDM. Brian ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
[indiana-discuss] How to upgrade packages without upgrading OS ?
Hi In Linux environment - more specifically - Ubuntu or Fedora - allows me to get latest version updates of some application packages - say Tomcat 6.0.20 - without requiring me to update kernel. Is this some thing planned for OpenSolaris 2009.06 or OpenSolaris.Next ? For example, if I am running a production server running on Tomcat 6.0.18 and if I want to update to Tomcat 6.0.20 , the current way to do on OpenSolaris would be a) set the repository to dev b) update to the latest build c) reboot the server. On Linux, If I am not mistaken, I am able to get version updates without having to do reboot to the new kernel and I don't have to be a paid customer !. - Sriram ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] How to upgrade packages without upgrading OS ?
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 11:13:02 -0700 Sriram Natarajan sriram.natara...@sun.com wrote: On Linux, If I am not mistaken, I am able to get version updates without having to do reboot to the new kernel and I don't have to be a paid customer !. The same goes for OpenSolaris ! You don't have to be a paid customer ! Packages are upgradable one by one. Dependancies are taken care of the way apt-get does it. Nobody forces you to do an image upgrade everytime you want to upgrade i.e. TomCat. Why would we? Read 'man pkg' or use the GUI. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] [pm-discuss] b111a: Power Management and nwam-issue ?
Eric Saxe wrote: I just took a quick look on Antonello's laptop... After resume in poll-mode, it does indeed seem to be staying at the top speed. PowerTOP reflects ~ 85% of CPU time being spent in C1 vs. C0, which seems to be true both before and after the resume. Prior to the resume, poll-mode CPUPM works as expected. In the default (event) mode on this system, I'm seeing the issue tracked by: 6818514 Event based CPU power management can sometimes auto-tune too conservatively FYI, the fix for 6818514 will be present in build 117 (I just pushed the fix)... Thanks, -Eric ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
No, that is the issue. Being outside the ARC process, guidance beyond what's in filesystem(5) (which comes from a product, Solaris, that's developed in the ARC process), is needed. Agreed. what happens if a project wants to deliver /bin/foo directly with OpenSolaris, via a consolidation, and a third-party has already registered that name? And: what happens, when package A delivers for example /etc/ipf.conf, and package B wants to deliver entries into that file, such as additional firewall rules, or removal of firewall rules? Now we have package A (let's call him a base package), and package B (let's call him an overlay package), which both claim /etc/opt/ipf.conf. How would this be handled, assuming there are about 20,000 systems on which this manipulation must be performed, perhaps as part of an automated provisioning process? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] How to upgrade packages without upgrading OS ?
dick hoogendijk wrote: Packages are upgradable one by one. Dependancies are taken care of the way apt-get does it. Nobody forces you to do an image upgrade everytime you want to upgrade i.e. TomCat. Why would we? I don't think it is possible to upgrade a single package to a version from a newer build unless that newer package version has been specifically backpublished to the build you have currently installed. And so far no fixes or security updates seem to have been backpublished to a stable release. -- Guido Berhoerster ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
Nicolas Williams wrote: On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 06:09:23PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree. The namespace issues are important. At the very least IPS needs to deal sanely with: - two or more pkgs in one repository with actions I assume you mean actions which overlap? This may or may not be an issue, depending on what packages a user wants to install. It would be nice if we could (optionally) catch this at publication time and that's something we may work towards in the future. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of third party software delivering conflicting actions, but at least we could be self-consistent. I don't necessarily think it a bug to allow pkgs with conflicting actions into a repository _as long as_ they are treated as mutually exclusive (including from incorporations). I'll put it this way. It's a nice feature to have since it lets the publisher ensure that the wad of software they're distributing is self-consistent. But, that's all it is, a nice feature for the publisher. It doesn't remove the need for install time checks because John Doe and Joe Schmo may both publish packages which deliver /usr/bin/foo, without ever knowing about the other's existence. Given that it's more an audit/safety check for the publisher, I think this can fall lower on our priorities since fixing the problem at installation time solves all instances of the problem, though admittedly less cleanly than preventing the issue at publication time. - a user trying to install one or more pkgs whose actions would conflict with those a pkg that's already installed Known bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3822 One thing that's holding this up is that there are issues with the current nevada pacakges delivering conflicts (see the dependent bugs of that bug). Until we deliver a self-consistent set of packages, IPS is somewhat constrained on what we can do. Understood. Until then I think /opt must continue to be the place where SW is delivered that is not integrated into OpenSolaris (with /contrib being a repository of wannabe integrated packages. And when these issues are addressed then the /opt issue can be revisited (though I think I'd still want to see a registry in place before we really kiss /opt goodbye). I'm very carefully staying out of the /opt debate as I know I don't understand enough of the consequences of. That said, the first step in being able to get this fix in is to fix the existing packages in our distro, something we could definitely use some help with since the problems, I believe, may be relevant for the nevada and S10 distros as well. Brock Nico ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] zio_read_data failed in GRUB while trying to boot from compact flash (CF)
Hi James, It was as the zio error that caught my attention as I have a superficial understanding of GRUB/x86-based booting. I found only two bugs with the zio error message. One was fixed and then 6843138, which seems to describe your boot error scenario, although without the greater than 1 TB disk factor, is fixed in a later build. Someone more experienced will have to comment. Cindy James Lee wrote: cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote: Hi James, No answers from me, just some information. The ability to boot from a disk greater than 1 TB integrated last fall and this support is in the OpenSolaris 2009.06 release. I see the same zio_read_data error (boot from install okay, but not from the disk) in this CR: 6843138 can not boot off of a 2.2TB and zfs root The root cause seems to be that the that BIOS is not reporting correct capacity. This CR is fixed in Nevada, build 117. If someone can get you the stage2 binary from build 117, then we would know for sure that is bug is your issue. Thanks Cindy. I think we may be onto something with this. I grabbed c62013fcda99 from hg where this fix was committed and compiled GRUB. I installed the stages like: # installgrub stage1 stage2 /dev/rdsk/c7d0s0 And GRUB actually loaded menu.lst and the splash image! This is the furthest I've gotten so far. Unfortunately, it can't read the kernel now: loading '/platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS,console=graphics' ... cpu: 'GenuineIntel' family 6 model 7 step 7 [BIOS accepted mixed-mode target setting!] zio_read_data failed Error 15: File not found Press any key to continue... Back in GRUB: grub find /platform/i86pc/kernel/unix zio_read_data failed Error 15: File not found So what would cause GRUB to be able to load /rpool/boot/grub/menu.lst fine but not /platform/i86pc/kernel/unix? ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:13:15PM -0700, UNIX admin wrote: And: what happens, when package A delivers for example /etc/ipf.conf, and package B wants to deliver entries into that file, such as additional firewall rules, or removal of firewall rules? That file is what we'd call an editable file, so neither package should clobber it -- instead IPS pkgs should be self-assembling (and SVR4 pkgs should use class action scripts). ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
Nicolas Williams wrote: [snip] Delivering software directly into /usr would be the easiest thing to do, but only the distribution vendor may do it safely; and anybody who is not a distribution vendor, or cannot afford the effort of integrating, or cannot afford to have their software bundled with the distro, is stuck without /opt, /etc/opt, and /var/opt. Not necessarily. A registry, for example, would allow us to solve that problem. Could you expand on the idea of a registry a bit? My impression is that to solve this problem, the proposal is to have a central repository at which everyone who makes a package for distribution on OpenSolaris registers the file locations and properties, symlink and hardlink locations and targets, and directory permissions. To be truly safe, would things like SMF service names and properties be needed as well? Is the proposal that to install any package, IPS would first check this registry to ensure the package was registered properly? Is there an example of another community where this has been done, and done well? My impression is that this seems like a solution with a lot of overhead which depends on buy in from the community to voluntarily register the packages they publish. As a side note, whoever is in charge of the registry would also probably need to take on adjudicating disagreements between package publishers about who has the right to specific files/links/etc, a job which seems difficult to say the least. Brock ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] no scripting zone and isaexec(3C) == architectural
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 01:31:17PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote: Nicolas Williams wrote: I don't necessarily think it a bug to allow pkgs with conflicting actions into a repository _as long as_ they are treated as mutually exclusive (including from incorporations). I'll put it this way. It's a nice feature to have since it lets the publisher ensure that the wad of software they're distributing is self-consistent. But, that's all it is, a nice feature for the Maybe, but then, since it's possible to have conflicts between, say, /contrib and /release (and these can arise after integration into /contrib), it's really not possible to prevent conflicts at publish-time. That said, trying to do that does no harm. [...] I'm very carefully staying out of the /opt debate as I know I don't understand enough of the consequences of. That said, the first step in being able to get this fix in is to fix the existing packages in our distro, something we could definitely use some help with since the problems, I believe, may be relevant for the nevada and S10 distros as well. The first thing to settle in the /opt debate is: what are the rules for OpenSolaris? So far we have Shawn's opinion, but we don't know that it's authoritative. Third parties can reasonably think that they have a pressing need to resolve that issue. Then we can leisurely debate what the answer should be (as opposed to what it is). Nico -- ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
