Re: [indiana-discuss] lost my grub background image
On 01/ 3/10 02:44 PM, Luca Morettoni wrote: After a 129 to 130 upgrade (and back to 129) I can't see the default grub background... I checked the file under /rpool/boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz fixed, the problem is that I have an old be (made by an BFU) active, after I have activated the correct be all come fine! -- Luca Morettoni luca(AT)morettoni.net | OpenSolaris SCA #OS0344 Web/BLOG: http://www.morettoni.net/ | http://twitter.com/morettoni jugUmbria founder: https://jugUmbria.dev.java.net/ ITLOSUG leader: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/User+Group+itl-osug/ ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] syseventd core dumps after resume on b129
Ivan Wang wrote: Hi all, Not sure if it's a known issue, I didn't find it at d.o.o. The thing is I tried putting a system with ASUS P6TD Deluxe and nvidia graphics into S3 then resume back. The system did enter S3, though after resume. It is 100 reproducible that syseventd core dumps. Core shows syseventd is sent with SIGABRT which made it looks like syseventd is killed deliberately. Have this been spotted before? Bug 6879476, should be fixed in 130. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6879476 Dave ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] b130 ZFS auto snapshots disabled
This is the result of the changes to roles in this build. I will file this bug. -Sanjay P-O Yliniemi wrote: After upgrading to b130, the auto-snapshot services are not able to start anymore. Starting the Gnome Time Slider Manager application, I get the following message: Snapshot manager service dependency error The snapshot manager service has been placed offline due to a dependency problem. The following dependency problems were found: offline svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:frequent offline svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:hourly offline svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:monthly offline svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:weekly offline svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:daily Run svcs -xv from a command prompt for more information about these dependency problems. Running the suggested svcs -xv command, I get the following output: svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:frequent (ZFS automatic snapshots) State: offline since December 28, 2009 12:46:41 AM CET Reason: Dependency svc:/system/filesystem/zfssnap-roleadd is absent. See: http://sun.com/msg/SMF-8000-E2 Impact: 1 dependent service is not running: svc:/application/time-slider:default svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:hourly (ZFS automatic snapshots) State: offline since December 28, 2009 12:46:41 AM CET Reason: Dependency svc:/system/filesystem/zfssnap-roleadd is absent. See: http://sun.com/msg/SMF-8000-E2 Impact: 1 dependent service is not running: svc:/application/time-slider:default svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:daily (ZFS automatic snapshots) State: offline since December 28, 2009 12:46:41 AM CET Reason: Dependency svc:/system/filesystem/zfssnap-roleadd is absent. See: http://sun.com/msg/SMF-8000-E2 Impact: 1 dependent service is not running: svc:/application/time-slider:default svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:weekly (ZFS automatic snapshots) State: offline since December 28, 2009 12:46:41 AM CET Reason: Dependency svc:/system/filesystem/zfssnap-roleadd is absent. See: http://sun.com/msg/SMF-8000-E2 Impact: 1 dependent service is not running: svc:/application/time-slider:default svc:/system/filesystem/zfs/auto-snapshot:monthly (ZFS automatic snapshots) State: offline since December 28, 2009 12:46:41 AM CET Reason: Dependency svc:/system/filesystem/zfssnap-roleadd is absent. See: http://sun.com/msg/SMF-8000-E2 Impact: 1 dependent service is not running: svc:/application/time-slider:default As a last resort, I reinstalled the zfs-auto-snapshot service (SUNWzfs-auto-snapshot) Gnome Time Slider admin application (SUNWgnome-time-slider) packages, and restarted the auto-snapshot services. Got a few other error messages (maintenance mode) and used svcadm clear [name], and got everything running (at least as it seems). Anyway, I need no help for now, but decided to post this message in case any other are having the same problem with auto-snapshots after the latest update. Regards, PeO ___ 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] OpenSolaris package repository update, development build 130, x86/x64/SPARC (38 new packages)
On 12/29/09 12:19 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote: On Tue, 2009-12-29 at 07:25 -0800, andrew wrote: postgres:x:90:90:PostgreSQL Reserved UID:/:/usr/bin/pfksh Optional shell file not found upnp:x:52:52:UPnP Server Reserved UID:/var/coherence:/bin/ksh Login directory not found What's this about a missing /usr/bin/pfksh? OK, so I create the /var/coherence directory, but the Solaris Profile Shell issue is not answered (yet). /usr/bin/pfksh does not exist. Not one profile shell does on OpenSolaris. Is this normal? An issue? do I create the hardlinks myself. Is a pfksh RBAC aware on OpenSolaris? I just checked my S10u7 server and that one has the pf..shells The pfksh implementation is based on ksh88, not ksh93 used in OpenSolaris. Hence, no pfksh at this time. Dave ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] OpenSolaris package repository update, development build 130, x86/x64/SPARC (38 new packages)
On 12/25/09 12:30 PM, Bernd Schemmer wrote: Hi another issue with the upgrade to snv_130: The installation worked but the new BE could not be activated: ... Reading Existing Index ... Done Indexing Packages ... Done pkg: unable to activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6 A manual beadm activate for the new BE did also not work. But the beadm activate for one of the older BEs worked without problems. I could boot into the new BE by manual selecting the new BE in the GRUB menu without problems (except the ones documented in the message above) Doing a beadm activate manual with the environment variable PRINT_ERR set (after booting into the new BE) I got a much better error message: xtrn...@t61p:~$ BE_PRINT_ERR=true pfexec beadm activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6 be_do_installgrub: installgrub failed for device c8d0s0. Unable to activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6. Unknown external error. And that's a correct error message: xtrn...@t61p:~$ zpool status pool: rpool state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-2Q scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror-0DEGRADED 0 0 0 c9t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8d0s0OFFLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0s0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open errors: No known data errors xtrn...@t61p:~$ (c8d0s0 and c1t0d0s0 are my backup disks which I only connect one time a week to create a copy of the rpool) After detaching c8d0s0 and c1t0d0s0 from the pool the beadm activate worked fine: r...@t61p:~# beadm list BEActive Mountpoint Space Policy Created ---- -- - -- --- OpenSolaris06-2009-b121 - - 3.37G static 2009-09-02 21:55 OpenSolaris06.2009-1 - - 4.88M static 2009-04-22 21:46 OpenSolaris06.2009-2 - - 93.0K static 2009-04-30 23:50 OpenSolaris06.2009-3 - - 26.03M static 2009-05-23 14:15 OpenSolaris06.2009-4 - /a 95.83M static 2009-06-05 23:52 OpenSolaris06.2009-5 - - 2.82G static 2009-06-27 16:42 OpenSolaris06.2009-6 NR / 28.15G static 2009-12-25 13:42 OpenSolaris06.2009-6-b118 - - 2.93G static 2009-07-18 13:08 opensolaris - - 168.32M static 2009-04-22 21:27 *Conclusion* IMHO I think 1. the error messages from beadm should be more detailed in the default configuration Absolutely. They'll be getting better in the coming months. 2. In this case I think a warning about the missing disk is enough -- I don't think this should be an error. I disagree. Your use case is an exceptional one, and having a mirrored installation that can't boot from all sides of the mirror could be fairly damaging. Dave ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] Full repo ISOs for 2010.02 release
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Dave Miner dmi...@opensolaris.org wrote: On 01/ 3/10 07:56 AM, andrew wrote: Can I be the first to put in a request for full repo ISOs for the 2010.02 release, along with some documentation on how to use it them? I don't know whether you're first :-), but they will be provided with the release. What about development releases before then? It would be nice to have the vague possibility of actually testing some of this stuff (and providing feedback) before an actual release. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
Re: [indiana-discuss] OpenSolaris package repository update, development build 130, x86/x64/SPARC (38 new packages)
Another issue that might be happening in this case is that the ZFS device names have changed starting in build 125. This change impacts luactivate and mostly likely beadm activate if you have a mirrored root pool because the root pool mirror device becomes mirror-0 as in Bernd's root pool and neither luactivate or beadm activate recognize this device name. The workaround is: 1. Detach the secondary mirrored root pool device(s) 2. Run the activate operation 3. Re-attach the secondary root pool device(s) I have attempted to describe this problem, here: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide#Live_Upgrade_and_beadm_Problem_.28Starting_in_Nevada.2C_build_125.29 I haven't been able to reproduce this scenario on my OpenSolaris laptop because I only have one disk. If someone else can confirm that CR 6894189 impacts beadm activate, then I will update this section with a better OpenSolaris error description and workaround. Thanks, Cindy On 01/04/10 13:53, Dave Miner wrote: On 12/25/09 12:30 PM, Bernd Schemmer wrote: Hi another issue with the upgrade to snv_130: The installation worked but the new BE could not be activated: ... Reading Existing Index ... Done Indexing Packages ... Done pkg: unable to activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6 A manual beadm activate for the new BE did also not work. But the beadm activate for one of the older BEs worked without problems. I could boot into the new BE by manual selecting the new BE in the GRUB menu without problems (except the ones documented in the message above) Doing a beadm activate manual with the environment variable PRINT_ERR set (after booting into the new BE) I got a much better error message: xtrn...@t61p:~$ BE_PRINT_ERR=true pfexec beadm activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6 be_do_installgrub: installgrub failed for device c8d0s0. Unable to activate OpenSolaris06.2009-6. Unknown external error. And that's a correct error message: xtrn...@t61p:~$ zpool status pool: rpool state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices could not be opened. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Attach the missing device and online it using 'zpool online'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-2Q scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool DEGRADED 0 0 0 mirror-0DEGRADED 0 0 0 c9t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8d0s0OFFLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0s0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open errors: No known data errors xtrn...@t61p:~$ (c8d0s0 and c1t0d0s0 are my backup disks which I only connect one time a week to create a copy of the rpool) After detaching c8d0s0 and c1t0d0s0 from the pool the beadm activate worked fine: r...@t61p:~# beadm list BEActive Mountpoint Space Policy Created ---- -- - -- --- OpenSolaris06-2009-b121 - - 3.37G static 2009-09-02 21:55 OpenSolaris06.2009-1 - - 4.88M static 2009-04-22 21:46 OpenSolaris06.2009-2 - - 93.0K static 2009-04-30 23:50 OpenSolaris06.2009-3 - - 26.03M static 2009-05-23 14:15 OpenSolaris06.2009-4 - /a 95.83M static 2009-06-05 23:52 OpenSolaris06.2009-5 - - 2.82G static 2009-06-27 16:42 OpenSolaris06.2009-6 NR / 28.15G static 2009-12-25 13:42 OpenSolaris06.2009-6-b118 - - 2.93G static 2009-07-18 13:08 opensolaris - - 168.32M static 2009-04-22 21:27 *Conclusion* IMHO I think 1. the error messages from beadm should be more detailed in the default configuration Absolutely. They'll be getting better in the coming months. 2. In this case I think a warning about the missing disk is enough -- I don't think this should be an error. I disagree. Your use case is an exceptional one, and having a mirrored installation that can't boot from all sides of the mirror could be fairly damaging. Dave ___ 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] Full repo ISOs for 2010.02 release
On Jan 4, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Dave Miner dmi...@opensolaris.org wrote: On 01/ 3/10 07:56 AM, andrew wrote: Can I be the first to put in a request for full repo ISOs for the 2010.02 release, along with some documentation on how to use it them? I don't know whether you're first :-), but they will be provided with the release. What about development releases before then? It would be nice to have the vague possibility of actually testing some of this stuff (and providing feedback) before an actual release. Doubtful; each release requires review specifically for external release. I don't know how trivial that is or is not, but I suspect resources on older development releases won't be spent. All I can say is that the plan is for this to eventually happen for every development release if at all feasible. -Shawn ___ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
