Re: [osol-discuss] [laptop-discuss] Intel Wireless 4965 support
I tried with the SUNWiwk driver from snv_87 and it seems to be noticably better now... Quaker Fang wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Please file a bug against this, and please describe the details of > your AP's configuration. > I have a T61 on hand, I will try to steup an env like yours. > > Thanks, > > -- > Quaker > > Stephen Lau wrote: >> Hi Quaker, >>I tried this again with the OpenSolaris RC2 release (which claims >> to be onnv_86), and still observed really really slow/poor performance. >> >> cheers, >> steve >> >> Quaker Fang wrote: >>> Hi Stephen, >>> >>> You may hit CR6677167, it has been fixed in snv_86, please upgrade >>> to latest build, then have a try. >>> >>> -- >>> Quaker >>> >>> Stephen Lau wrote: Hi Geeta, pkginfo -l SUNWiwk says "VERSION: 11.11,REV=2008.03.17.17.33", this is on an Lenovo Thinkpad T61 running snv_81. I notice occasionally I get bursts of higher-speed, but most of the time it seems quite slow (around 10kB/sec). cheers, steve Krishna, Geetanjali wrote: > Steve, > > Performance runs done by Brian Xu had showed much better results: > > 1. ftp > get/put 2 GigaByte file with speed 3200KB/s or so > 2. ttcp performance > 6 sessions - 65000 data length - bi direction, we get rate 22-25Mb/s. > > Could you post more details of the configuration you are using so > we can > investigate further? Did you use version 1.0 or 1.1 of the driver? > > Most of the wireless discussions take place on the laptop-discuss > mailing list so I am copying that list as well. > > Thanks, > Geeta > > > > >> I've run it on snv_81. Seems to work (with WPA2 Personal), but it's >> deathly slow. I haven't been able to get more than 10kB/sec out >> of it. >> >> -steve >> >> -- >> stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net >> >> ___ >> opensolaris-discuss mailing list >> opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org >> >> >> -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [laptop-discuss] Intel Wireless 4965 support
Hi Stephen, Please file a bug against this, and please describe the details of your AP's configuration. I have a T61 on hand, I will try to steup an env like yours. Thanks, -- Quaker Stephen Lau wrote: > Hi Quaker, >I tried this again with the OpenSolaris RC2 release (which claims > to be onnv_86), and still observed really really slow/poor performance. > > cheers, > steve > > Quaker Fang wrote: >> Hi Stephen, >> >> You may hit CR6677167, it has been fixed in snv_86, please upgrade to >> latest build, then have a try. >> >> -- >> Quaker >> >> Stephen Lau wrote: >>> Hi Geeta, >>> pkginfo -l SUNWiwk says "VERSION: 11.11,REV=2008.03.17.17.33", >>> this is on an Lenovo Thinkpad T61 running snv_81. I notice >>> occasionally I get bursts of higher-speed, but most of the time it >>> seems quite slow (around 10kB/sec). >>> cheers, >>> steve >>> >>> Krishna, Geetanjali wrote: >>> Steve, Performance runs done by Brian Xu had showed much better results: 1. ftp get/put 2 GigaByte file with speed 3200KB/s or so 2. ttcp performance 6 sessions - 65000 data length - bi direction, we get rate 22-25Mb/s. Could you post more details of the configuration you are using so we can investigate further? Did you use version 1.0 or 1.1 of the driver? Most of the wireless discussions take place on the laptop-discuss mailing list so I am copying that list as well. Thanks, Geeta > I've run it on snv_81. Seems to work (with WPA2 Personal), but it's > deathly slow. I haven't been able to get more than 10kB/sec out > of it. > > -steve > > -- > stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net > > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > >>> >>> >>> > > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Help with Compiz
alanc hi i had tried the test version of Solaris Everything seemed ok with Compiz it looked nice. My drive mapping was different then it is now. i was unhappy about Mplayer being absent there, and not being able to play avi with totem. There was no xvid packaging was there either. The packages i normally use now on Solaris 10 or Solaris Express >From ocean. did not work on the Solaris test system i felt like i was using Ununtu with that package manager there i hope the final version has all that working properly This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [laptop-discuss] Intel Wireless 4965 support
Hi Quaker, I tried this again with the OpenSolaris RC2 release (which claims to be onnv_86), and still observed really really slow/poor performance. cheers, steve Quaker Fang wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > You may hit CR6677167, it has been fixed in snv_86, please upgrade to > latest build, then have a try. > > -- > Quaker > > Stephen Lau wrote: >> Hi Geeta, >> pkginfo -l SUNWiwk says "VERSION: 11.11,REV=2008.03.17.17.33", >> this is on an Lenovo Thinkpad T61 running snv_81. I notice >> occasionally I get bursts of higher-speed, but most of the time it >> seems quite slow (around 10kB/sec). >> cheers, >> steve >> >> Krishna, Geetanjali wrote: >> >>> Steve, >>> >>> Performance runs done by Brian Xu had showed much better results: >>> >>> 1. ftp >>> get/put 2 GigaByte file with speed 3200KB/s or so >>> 2. ttcp performance >>> 6 sessions - 65000 data length - bi direction, we get rate 22-25Mb/s. >>> >>> Could you post more details of the configuration you are using so we >>> can >>> investigate further? Did you use version 1.0 or 1.1 of the driver? >>> >>> Most of the wireless discussions take place on the laptop-discuss >>> mailing list so I am copying that list as well. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Geeta >>> >>> >>> >>> I've run it on snv_81. Seems to work (with WPA2 Personal), but it's deathly slow. I haven't been able to get more than 10kB/sec out of it. -steve -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org >> >> >> -- stephen lau | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.whacked.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] xntp interval
NTP adjusts the clock constantly. What changes is the poll intervals. Unless you override it, it will begin polling servers at 64 second intervals. If the clock is stable and the links to the remote clocks are good, it will raise the interval to a maximum of 1024 seconds between polls. -- Darren This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Passwd not able to updated Centerlize LDAP Server
> I have[b]openldap[/b] running on solaris 10 x86 server > with all system users are migrated on LDAP TREE.!. > I configure client on other solaris 10 x86 server. WHy ?There are perfectly usable working Native Solaris LDAP Servers and client . They have worked since Solaris 8 . If you need OpenLDAP support ask at www.openldap.org //Lars This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] what to do with the questions
Hi, I have been looking at the help forum for these past months. Lots of problems are networking. these can be categorised as : 1) Missing entry in /etc/driver_aliasesfor a particular NIC with an otherwise supported driver. 2) The enduser is ignorant of NICs and Drivers and has a unsupported NIC. Or even worse a Laptop with a builtin unsupported NIC. 3) User error in configuration. Second recurring question is the missing ATAPI support in the nv-sata driver. Last month has seen a growing trend with non-english questions that never receives an answer. One soulution I can suggest is that people will be encouraged to ask local language questions in the user group forums as these mail are sent out to the usergroup members. It seems likely that an answer will arrive faster that way. If permission can be granted.I think we should take the Solaris FAQ from BIGADMIN and just expand it. http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/misc/solaris2faq.html //Lars This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
Hi > 1. Are version numbers of Opensolaris and version > number of Solaris line synchronized, or separate ? No. Both are separate projects. Think Fedora and RHEL. > 2. Where can I see timeline of releases, by recent > years, of OpenSolaris and of Solaris, with version > numbers ? For Solaris, you can check on Wikipedia. For OpenSolaris, checkout the timeline page, but there are several distributions and you'd only find out SXCE, SXDE and Indiana at opensolaris.org. Rest have their own websites. > 3. Are version number of the kernels separate from > version numbers of distros, or same ? Are version > number of Opensolaris kernels synchronized with > version numbers of SOlaris kernels, or separate ? There are no "separate" version numbers. Solaris/OpenSolaris are similar in this regard to *BSD. The whole "thing" is kernel + userland ==> distro. The "distribution" has build/version numbers. Individual components have revision numbers (changelog#). > 4. Is whole solaris kernel opensourced, or only parts > of kernel ? Kernel can't be talked in isolation when talking about Solaris/OpenSolaris. All the kernel bits are opensource, but some userland tools (eg. CDE) and other stuff too old/too encumbered isn't yet (and probably won't - they'd be removed/rewritten/replaced). Basically: Solaris : OpenSolaris :: RHEL : Fedora And OpenSolaris "system" is like *BSD "system" where you have the whole thing which comprises of kernel AND userland and called as an OS. I hope I'm correct in this explanation. - Akhilesh This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
Victoria Muntean wrote: >> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ > This page does not mention a single version number. This is not a roadmap of binary distribution releases. This was originally a roadmap outlining when pieces of Solaris and other processes and tools would be open sourced and available on opensolaris.org. This roadmap needs an overhaul but it will still be a roadmap about the program, not about the binary distributions. Bonnie > > How does it compare with Linux where every kernel version has a version > number ? Opensolaris versions are not numbered ? > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
Victoria Muntean writes: > I have several questions to understand how versioning of opensolaris works. Unfortunately, the question you're asking doesn't really have a clear answer. (It seems you're basing your questions on the Linux kernel numbering scheme and, no, we don't do things quite that way.) Solaris has had two Major releases: those were the very first SunOS release decades ago, which was BSD-based, and the Solaris 2.0 SVr4-based release. Since 2.0 (which was a long time ago as well; circa 1992), we've had only Minor releases. Even Solaris 10 is technically a Minor (compatible) release. The current bits under development on opensolaris.org are code-named Nevada, and the current rules for integration (into OS-Net, the core of the operating system) specify that projects must have Minor release "binding" -- meaning compatible changes. The source code could be compiled to produce a "Solaris 11" (another Minor release) at any time, but I know of no current plans to do so. (And if I did, this probably wouldn't be the right venue to talk about it anyway.) The key issue, though, that makes your questions unanswerable is that versioning is up to *distributors*. Those who create distributions based on OpenSolaris are free to choose content (and create local changes as well) that represent a range of possible release bindings and thus completely different numbering schemes. Nobody in OpenSolaris really has the power to force a distributor into one version numbering scheme or another. Or any at all. That includes the "uname" output, which distributors may (and probably should) change to suit local tastes. The default output says "5.11," but since that's not part of any released Sun product[1], that may well be untrue. > 1. Are version numbers of Opensolaris and version number of Solaris line > synchronized, or separate ? Neither. There's currently no version numbering (other than Mercurial changeset numbers) going on with OpenSolaris. > 2. Where can I see timeline of releases, by recent years, of Opensolaris and > of Solaris, with version numbers ? You can't see any for OpenSolaris, but for Solaris, google finds many references. A good one is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solaris_Operating_System Some of the distributions (such as Sun's "Solaris Express Community Edition") have a build number that's based on the biweekly builds done by the Sun release engineers. Some distributions seem to follow that build numbering scheme, but nobody really compels any distributor to use it. For the biweekly schedule used in OS-Net, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/schedule/ > 3. Are version number of the kernels separate from version numbers of > distros, or same ? Are version number of Opensolaris kernels synchronized > with version numbers of SOlaris kernels, or separate ? > > 4. Is whole solaris kernel opensourced, or only parts of kernel ? See: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/conslist/ There are only a very few things (such as CDE) that aren't available due to licensing problems. (And, no, we generally can't do anything about those few unavailable parts. Complaining upstream would be more productive. :-<) [1] There are murky areas here, such as OpenSolaris Developer Preview, that I don't understand. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ This page does not mention a single version number. How does it compare with Linux where every kernel version has a version number ? Opensolaris versions are not numbered ? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problema Java Desktop system,release 3
SInce your start kde, you have third party software installed ... check the libraries installed.. maybe one has corrupted the original. Regards Alex This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
> I have several questions to understand how versioning > of opensolaris works. > > 1. Are version numbers of Opensolaris and version > number of Solaris line synchronized, or separate ? > > 2. Where can I see timeline of releases, by recent > years, of Opensolaris and of Solaris, with version > numbers ? http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/roadmap/ > 3. Are version number of the kernels separate from > version numbers of distros, or same ? Are version > number of Opensolaris kernels synchronized with > version numbers of SOlaris kernels, or separate ? Right now I think that the builds identify the kernel version. About Major versions ... the 1 is going out this month or the next I think. > 4. Is whole solaris kernel opensourced, or only parts > of kernel ? http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/ > Thanks > Viki This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] versioning of opensolaris
I have several questions to understand how versioning of opensolaris works. 1. Are version numbers of Opensolaris and version number of Solaris line synchronized, or separate ? 2. Where can I see timeline of releases, by recent years, of Opensolaris and of Solaris, with version numbers ? 3. Are version number of the kernels separate from version numbers of distros, or same ? Are version number of Opensolaris kernels synchronized with version numbers of SOlaris kernels, or separate ? 4. Is whole solaris kernel opensourced, or only parts of kernel ? Thanks Viki This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] what to do with the questions
Just thinking...seems every question that's not nonsense should ideally have _some_ value in answering it (over and above to the person asking): * if it crops up a lot, it could be a FAQ entry somewhere, as well as something that needs to be more easily found in the documentation * if it's nontrivial user error, perhaps that's suggestive of an opportunity to improve some documentation or offer some training (whether by the user paying for it, or a user group sponsoring it, or free online training, or whatever) * if it's a real problem, there should be a bug report * if it's something that's not currently possible, perhaps there should be an RFE etc (which is to say that the above list itself should be subject to growth and revision as needed). I think stats are kept on code (and documentation?) contributions. Perhaps if stats were kept on the disposition of questions, it would be possible to quantify more benefits, identify more strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities, substantively refute cynicism (or at least respond to it), and visibly do a more systematic job of both getting the maximum value out of user input, and minimizing repetitive questions. To do that without being too burdensome would take a decent database app, designed to help avoiding duplicate entries. And it would take a procedure, something like: asker identifies which answer(s) were conclusive for them, and either the asker or one of the major contributors to the answer enters the question, answer, and (optionally) suggested long-term measure to keep the question from needing to be asked again. In a free support environment, I think the asker should summarize, otherwise they're more like a parasite than a symbiote. In a paid support environment, or if both the value of the question/answer and the expertise to summarize it effectively are more apparent to the responder, then perhaps they should summarize. IMO at a dead minimum though, the asker should consider themselves responsible to either indicate what answer(s) they considered responsive, or that they've given up. Otherwise, the Q&A wanders or just fades away pointlessly. Maybe that could be done on a wiki rather than a database app - it would need to be widely editable rather than burdening just a few privileged people; and a wiki can still be "protected" by simply reverting unreasonable changes. How it could be organized though (depending only on question and short-term answer, since the suggested long-term response might be absent or revised), that's where I run out of ideas. Maybe that's all it takes, thinking about how to capture the value of feedback and interaction, putting out some guidelines (and revising them as needed), and (time permitting) encouraging people to add or update wiki entries. It's not about one more hoop to jump, it's about giving just a bit of structure to the _opportunity_ to capture that value. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
