[CORRECTION] Re: disk size mismatch issue during install on ultra1
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/disc bs=1M count=1 to zorch the disk label. Sorry about that! HTH! --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One trick to consider. If it's not a boot disk, use an MSDOS / PC label. The kernel can still read it and it's a lot less flaky than the Sun scheme. One issue I have had with large disks and Sun labels (but this only occurred on a 40G volume) is that the disk did not work right with a Sun label, and I had to use PC instead to get it to work at all. Can another helpful D-I or Sun internals person talk a little about disk labels? They seem to be a little odd and I do not understand why they cause such problems. Another thing to try: zorch the hell out of the disk label with dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/disc bs=1M Then redo it with parted's CHS numbers: 8637,64,32. I have noticed parted and SPARC fdisk tend to take the label as gospel truth even when it's stuffed full of inaccurate crap. I bet if you erase the label and recreate it, this problem should stop happening. That was another trick I needed to use to get going at one point. Another thing, get the proper CHS numbers from the disk maker and type those in to the label creation command in parted. This should help you with your geometry problem. HTH! --- Ardo van Rangelrooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I had an issue similar to this one when installing on an Ultra 2 with a similar setup. I found I could get around the problem by selecting the execute a shell option in the debian installer, then running parted on the disk manually. One thing I cannot remember that you will need to find out in order to do this is the proper device name for your disks. The name convention used by the installer kernel is really bizarre and I do not understand how it works. Hopefully the D-I people on this list will be able to explain what device names your disks might be using, or you can reverse engineer it from the install screens. --- Ardo van Rangelrooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've got an interesting issue with installing sarge on an ultra1: At the beginning of the partitioning the 9GB HD's are detected correctly as having 9GB. However, when configuring the 1st partition as 4GB, the partition size is reported as 2GB in the partition info screen. When I continue there's only some 27MB left. When using guided partitioning I get similar results (1.9GB + 99MB) and the partitioning even fails with an error message stating that there are too many primary partitions. I'm using the netboot from April 24 and both 2.4 and 2.6 fail. Older netboots (e.g. rc3) also fail here. The ultra1 has OBP v3.35 and probe-scsi detects the HD's correctly. It has 256MB memory. Any thoughts/hints/help how to get across this hurdle? I looked through the bug reports for d-i but didn't find anything about this issue. Thanks for the tip. I'm a step closer. When running parted by hand I get /bin # parted /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/disc print Warning: The disk CHS geometry (8637,64,32) does not match the geometry stored on the disk label (1107,27,133). Ignore/Cancel? c Information: Don't forget to update /etc/fstab, if necessary. Unfortunately running parted /dev/scsi/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/disc mklabel sun does NOT resolve this. The geometry mismatch persits. I'll run fdisk on this disk in another machine and see what gives. Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multimedia packages available
Hi, I did sparc packages for my multimedia repository (mplayer, lame, avidemux, transcode, pymusique, etc...) : http://hpisi.nerim.net/ http://debian.video.free.fr/ direct link to the packages : ftp://ftp.nerim.net/debian-marillat/dists/unstable/main/binary-sparc/ Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: migration from sunOS/ultrasparc to linux/ultrasparc
ok thanks for the answer it help me a lot. What linux (distribution and kernel) did you use for running your E4000 ? Is there some application li ke oracle running on it? Vincent De: Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] co.uk A: Vincent 13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet: Re: migration fr om sunOS/ultrasparc to linux/ultrasparc Date: 23 Apr 2005 22:30:40 +01 00 preOn Sat, 2005-04-23 at 14:30, Vincent 13 wrote: I'm searching some informations about a migrating project from a sunOS/ ultraSPARC to linux/ultraSPARC.The servers used are v240 and v4 40 from SUN. 1) Does someone have ever tried to install a lin ux on such servers? I haven't tried personnally but I see no rea son why they shouldn't. Support for newer Sun hardware can be a littl e rough around the edges as not many developers have them but it shoul d still work. 2) How well does linux work with multi-processors SPARC ? - What are the restrictions ?(number of processor s upported ? memor y? ) (SMP howto is quite old) - Are the lim itations just theoretical or someone have ever tried them ? I wa s working on a 10 way E4000 running Linux yesterday and it JFWs. The default limit is 32 processors, I think some of the NUMA patches may h andle more. About a year or so ago someone was working on running Lin ux on an E10K. Not sure anyone's ever tried anything larger. Chee rs, - Martin -- Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sea sons change, things come to pass -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscri be. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] /pre Comp arez les prix de la high-tech avec Boursoprix.com - http://www.boursoprix.com
Re: Re: migration from sunOS/ultrasparc to linux/ultrasparc
ok thanks for the answer it help me a lot. What linux (distribution and kernel) did you use for running your E4000 ? Debian! Hence being on the list :-) I've run 2.2.20, 2.4.18, 2.4.27, 2.6.8 and 2.6.11, mostly the ones that come with either Stable or Testing. Is there some application li ke oracle running on it? Not yet, I intend to run PostGreSQL. Cheers, - Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WG: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
I tried everything I could and I can't get more then 6.6MB/sec out of the IDE disks on my Ultra10's. If anyone can quote better numbers on Solaris, or *BSD, or whatever, let me hear about it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WG: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
What kind of benchmark did you run? It would be sort of silly if I didn't do a similar test. I will see if I can get Solaris benchmarks for you as well, but it will take a while. --- David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried everything I could and I can't get more then 6.6MB/sec out of the IDE disks on my Ultra10's. If anyone can quote better numbers on Solaris, or *BSD, or whatever, let me hear about it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Status of Debian on Sun Blade 150
Hi Wiktor, On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Wiktor Wandachowicz wrote: - The installer progreses up to the point where it wants to install a base system, but it is unable to do so. The error diplayed is: [!!] Install the base system Cannot install Debian The installer cannot figure out how to install Debian. No installable CD-ROM was found and no valid mirror was configured. Go Back Continue I attach a gzipped archive of whole /var/log directory of the debian installer (from its ramdisk). On the target machine the installer created only some less important files. According to the logs the base-installer (it's postinst script, actually) exited with error cannot_install. According to the source, this error can only occur (given that the CD is properly mounted under /cdrom) if it fails to read the contents of the /cdrom/.disk/base_components file (which is present on CD). I tend to think that it was just some random cd-rom glitch (I didn't encounter any problems during my testing). Could you please try reproducing it, and if the problem persists, return to main menu, start a shell and check that the mentioned file indeed exists and contains the string 'main' (without quotes)? Thanks for testing, Jurij Smakov[EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WG: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:35:37 -0700 (PDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What kind of benchmark did you run? It would be sort of silly if I didn't do a similar test. /sbin/hdparm -t /dev/hda which does an uncached O_DIRECT 20MB read from the IDE disk, it's the real disk bandwidth not a cached number. Also, try /sbin/hdparm -c3 -m16 -d1 -X34 /dev/hda if the performance stinks even worse than the 6.6MB I'm getting. DMA tends to not get enabled by default unless the disk is in the IDE layer white list, the Seagate's that came standard in Ultra5 and Ultra10 systems just so happen to be in that white list. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
