[OpenIndiana-discuss] read/write hard drive parameters
I'm having awful luck with WD 8Tb red drives. Mirror configuration, ZFS is failing the drives on sustained writes. RAIDZ seems to be more forgiving. I've sent one drive back and have two more under RMA, but so far my crude testing seems to indicate that this is a configuration issue generic to the model, rather than an out and out faulty drive. Someone else said (not on here) has said they had to tweek the write timeouts on the drives to stop them erroring. So the trick is... how do I address the drive parameters under OpenIndiana please? Does anyone have a link to a how-to please? Michelle. ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:58 PM Mike Carroll wrote: > I meant comparatively speaking to SPARC. Ah, OK. I wouldn't even think about SPARC prices. As the saying goes, "if you have to ask ..." Most of the SPARC stuff seems niche and expensive. Agreed. Not sure how well illumos kernels would run on ARM if ported. > As far as Arm SBSA-compliant machines are concerned, I'm not aware of anything that isn't Linux running on those in production. Personally I wouldn't attempt to run Illumos on an SBC, even a Pi 4B, due to limited RAM. > From: Judah Richardson > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 5:46 PM > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mike Carroll > wrote: > > > I can understand maintaining it's support for SPARC, though I would like > > to see more work on the new OpenPower Foundation Processors (that have at > > least SOME similarity in the SMT4 and SMT8). > > Is any distribution except Debian, Ubuntu, IBM Linux(ONE?), and AIX > providing significant support for these? Of course, I suppose in the case > of Linux once the kernel supports the ISA all you have to worry about are > package builds. > > These seem affordable > > Link? AFAIK the only consumer-facing retail available POWER systems are > from Raptor Systems, and even the entry level desktops, CPUs and > motherboards are incredibly expensive relative to comparable x86-64 > offerings and even compared to something like an M1 Mini. > > at the moment too. > > > > > > From: Chris > > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:19 PM > > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > > > Cc: Volker A. Brandt > > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today > > > > On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: > > >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > > >> > > >> Toomas Soome writes: > > >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, > > this > > >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to > negative > > >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such > > translation > > >>> in > > >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, > > the > > >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, > > such > > >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch > > from > > >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, > > keeping in > > >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. > > >> > > >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could > be > > >> switched to gcc 7? > > > > > > > > > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue > > has > > > been > > > open for ~10 years. > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely > > with > > >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of > illumos > > >>> tree. One example: > > >> [...] > > >> > > >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that > > >> is fixed? > > > > > > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue > > is, we > > > do > > > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do > > > realize > > > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and > > projects > > > are > > > rather removing SPARC support... > > > > > >> > > >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. > > >> > > >> Fair enough. > > >> > > >> [...] > > >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in > > this > > >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) > > >> > > >> Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; > > >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. > > >> > > > > > > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other > > hand, > > > there > > > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. > > > > > > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start > > > looking > > > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like > > arm64 > > > or > > > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for > > future > > > of > > > this OS. > > While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future > with > > its > > development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit > > nostalgic, > > and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, > to > > post > > their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. > > -- long live SPARC! > > > > --Chris > > > > > > rgds, > > > toomas > > > ___ > > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > >
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
I meant comparatively speaking to SPARC. Most of the SPARC stuff seems niche and expensive. Not sure how well illumos kernels would run on ARM if ported. From: Judah Richardson Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 5:46 PM To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mike Carroll wrote: > I can understand maintaining it's support for SPARC, though I would like > to see more work on the new OpenPower Foundation Processors (that have at > least SOME similarity in the SMT4 and SMT8). Is any distribution except Debian, Ubuntu, IBM Linux(ONE?), and AIX providing significant support for these? Of course, I suppose in the case of Linux once the kernel supports the ISA all you have to worry about are package builds. These seem affordable Link? AFAIK the only consumer-facing retail available POWER systems are from Raptor Systems, and even the entry level desktops, CPUs and motherboards are incredibly expensive relative to comparable x86-64 offerings and even compared to something like an M1 Mini. at the moment too. > > > From: Chris > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:19 PM > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > Cc: Volker A. Brandt > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today > > On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: > >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > >> > >> Toomas Soome writes: > >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, > this > >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative > >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such > translation > >>> in > >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, > the > >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, > such > >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch > from > >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, > keeping in > >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. > >> > >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be > >> switched to gcc 7? > > > > > > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue > has > > been > > open for ~10 years. > > > > > >> > >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely > with > >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos > >>> tree. One example: > >> [...] > >> > >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that > >> is fixed? > > > > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue > is, we > > do > > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do > > realize > > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and > projects > > are > > rather removing SPARC support... > > > >> > >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. > >> > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> [...] > >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in > this > >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) > >> > >> Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; > >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. > >> > > > > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other > hand, > > there > > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. > > > > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start > > looking > > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like > arm64 > > or > > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for > future > > of > > this OS. > While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future with > its > development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit > nostalgic, > and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, to > post > their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. > -- long live SPARC! > > --Chris > > > > rgds, > > toomas > > ___ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > -- > > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 5:28 PM Mike Carroll wrote: > I can understand maintaining it's support for SPARC, though I would like > to see more work on the new OpenPower Foundation Processors (that have at > least SOME similarity in the SMT4 and SMT8). Is any distribution except Debian, Ubuntu, IBM Linux(ONE?), and AIX providing significant support for these? Of course, I suppose in the case of Linux once the kernel supports the ISA all you have to worry about are package builds. These seem affordable Link? AFAIK the only consumer-facing retail available POWER systems are from Raptor Systems, and even the entry level desktops, CPUs and motherboards are incredibly expensive relative to comparable x86-64 offerings and even compared to something like an M1 Mini. at the moment too. > > > From: Chris > Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:19 PM > To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana > Cc: Volker A. Brandt > Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today > > On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: > >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > >> > >> Toomas Soome writes: > >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, > this > >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative > >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such > translation > >>> in > >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, > the > >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, > such > >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch > from > >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, > keeping in > >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. > >> > >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be > >> switched to gcc 7? > > > > > > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue > has > > been > > open for ~10 years. > > > > > >> > >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely > with > >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos > >>> tree. One example: > >> [...] > >> > >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that > >> is fixed? > > > > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue > is, we > > do > > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do > > realize > > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and > projects > > are > > rather removing SPARC support... > > > >> > >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. > >> > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> [...] > >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in > this > >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) > >> > >> Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; > >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. > >> > > > > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other > hand, > > there > > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. > > > > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start > > looking > > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like > arm64 > > or > > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for > future > > of > > this OS. > While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future with > its > development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit > nostalgic, > and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, to > post > their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. > -- long live SPARC! > > --Chris > > > > rgds, > > toomas > > ___ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > -- > > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
I can understand maintaining it's support for SPARC, though I would like to see more work on the new OpenPower Foundation Processors (that have at least SOME similarity in the SMT4 and SMT8). These seem affordable at the moment too. From: Chris Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 3:19 PM To: Discussion list for OpenIndiana Cc: Volker A. Brandt Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: >> >> Toomas Soome writes: >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, this >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such translation >>> in >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, the >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, such >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch from >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, keeping in >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. >> >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be >> switched to gcc 7? > > > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue has > been > open for ~10 years. > > >> >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely with >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos >>> tree. One example: >> [...] >> >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that >> is fixed? > > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue is, we > do > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do > realize > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and projects > are > rather removing SPARC support... > >> >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. >> >> Fair enough. >> >> [...] >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in this >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) >> >> Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. >> > > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other hand, > there > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. > > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start > looking > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like arm64 > or > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for future > of > this OS. While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future with its development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit nostalgic, and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, to post their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. -- long live SPARC! --Chris > > rgds, > toomas > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:19 PM Chris wrote: > On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: > >> On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > >> > >> Toomas Soome writes: > >>> The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, > this > >>> issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative > >>> 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such > translation > >>> in > >>> compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, > the > >>> code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, > such > >>> translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch > from > >>> gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, > keeping in > >>> mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. > >> > >> In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be > >> switched to gcc 7? > > > > > > yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue > has > > been > > open for ~10 years. > > > > > >> > >>> Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely > with > >>> 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos > >>> tree. One example: > >> [...] > >> > >> Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that > >> is fixed? > > > > I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue > is, we > > do > > not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do > > realize > > this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and > projects > > are > > rather removing SPARC support... > > > >> > >>> I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. > >> > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> [...] > >>> As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in > this > >>> list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) > >> > >> Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; > >> as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. > >> > > > > Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other > hand, > > there > > is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. > > > > And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start > > looking > > forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like > arm64 > > or > > risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for > future > > of > > this OS. > While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future > with > its > development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit > nostalgic, > and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, > to > post > their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. > As someone who learned Fortran and MATLAB on Solaris SPARC workstations, I'm reasonably sure all the people who want to be part of that effort have already shown up and made themselves known. -- long live SPARC! > > --Chris > > > > rgds, > > toomas > > ___ > > openindiana-discuss mailing list > > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > -- > > ___ > openindiana-discuss mailing list > openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org > https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] The Register today
On 2021-05-10 02:23, Toomas Soome via openindiana-discuss wrote: On 10. May 2021, at 12:05, Volker A. Brandt wrote: Toomas Soome writes: The immediate issue is https://www.illumos.org/issues/2757. In core, this issue means that negative 32-bit numbers are not translated to negative 64-bit numbers. Currently used gcc 4.4.4 does implement such translation in compiler, there is no such patch for more recent compilers (firstly, the code path in more recent compilers has changed a lot, and secondly, such translation should be done by OS). This effectively does block switch from gcc 4.4.4. I actually am running gcc 7 built system, knowingly, keeping in mind that I may be bitten by problems cause by this issue. In other words, when that issue is fixed, the primary compiler could be switched to gcc 7? yes, assuming the needed cleanups are done;) but then again, this issue has been open for ~10 years. Secondly, there are SPARC optimizer issues in gcc 7 and gcc 9 (likely with 10 as well), crashing compiler while building specific parts of illumos tree. One example: [...] Could this be worked around by selectively turning off -O2 until that is fixed? I have -O1 in my local patch, yes. But, the implication of this issue is, we do not really know how much, or to what extent, we can count on gcc. I do realize this does sound like FUD, but we do depend on external compiler and projects are rather removing SPARC support... I haven’t had time to open bugreport with gcc. Fair enough. [...] As a side note, it is interesting to see SPARC related discussion in this list; there is no package repository for SPARC by OpenIndiana;) Yes. However, there are people working on new infrastructure for OI; as soon as that is in place there will be a public repo for OI/SPARC. Yes, I am aware of that too. From one hand it is nice, but from other hand, there is a reason *why* I would vote for removing SPARC support. And the reason is, I do think we should stop looking backward and start looking forward. I’d rather spend my time on building support for things like arm64 or risc-v or some quantum computer or something what really matters for future of this OS. While I agree with you that OI _should_ look to, and target the future with its development efforts. As that will ensure its future relevance. I'm a bit nostalgic, and would hope that there is still a place for those that have the time, to post their work in an OI supported (SPARC) repo. -- long live SPARC! --Chris rgds, toomas ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss -- ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Virtualbox 6.1.22?
On 05/11/21 11:47 AM, Carl Brewer wrote: On 11/05/2021 10:35 am, Carl Brewer wrote: On 10/05/2021 9:47 pm, Andreas Wacknitz wrote: I have created a PR: https://github.com/OpenIndiana/oi-userland/pull/6739 As I said before: I cannot test it so I will leave it to the community to test it appropriately and give it an approval. Testing it now, will let you know I know this is a dumb question, but I can't quickly find the answer, to test this, I need to build it. To build it, I have done this : git clone https://github.com/OpenIndiana/oi-userland How do I then update the virtualboix src to 6739 so I can compile & test it? With SVN I'd have just done an svn update, git is a foreign language to me :/ Carl ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss cd oi-userland git fetch origin pull/6739/head:pr-6739 git checkout pr-6739 cd sysutils/virtualbox gmake publish Stephan ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Virtualbox 6.1.22?
On 11/05/2021 10:35 am, Carl Brewer wrote: On 10/05/2021 9:47 pm, Andreas Wacknitz wrote: I have created a PR: https://github.com/OpenIndiana/oi-userland/pull/6739 As I said before: I cannot test it so I will leave it to the community to test it appropriately and give it an approval. Testing it now, will let you know I know this is a dumb question, but I can't quickly find the answer, to test this, I need to build it. To build it, I have done this : git clone https://github.com/OpenIndiana/oi-userland How do I then update the virtualboix src to 6739 so I can compile & test it? With SVN I'd have just done an svn update, git is a foreign language to me :/ Carl ___ openindiana-discuss mailing list openindiana-discuss@openindiana.org https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
