Mike Gerdts wrote:
When really important features are released as new
packages genesis patches are delivered to deliver the feature.
Sometimes, but not always. In fact, I'd have to say usually not. The
Genesis technique is not without its problems, and is considered
controversial.
Nick Kew wrote:
(Note, incidentally, that the picture might be different for a Java
server, where the Java byte code for the application and a bunch of
overhead objects might well fall into that sharable bucket.)
Would that apply to similar bytecode like Python, which is commonly
run
You and Dan both talked about user authentication and therefore the need
for the zone_enter to happen late, but I don't think that's part of
the picture here at all.
Nick is trying to isolate virtual systems, not users. I've seen this
problem on my personal hosting providers - my CGI scripts
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 02:37:28PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote:
Nick is trying to isolate virtual systems, not users. I've seen this
That was, obviously, not the impression tat I got. It's trivial to
separate virtual systems by just running them in zones. But if I
Narendra Kumar S.S wrote:
Is there any particular reason, why you are not proposing to move
filesystem/local to single-user milestone.
That was option #1 in my list. However, there were those who objected
to changing the definition of single-user mode in this way. In
addition, there
We had a meeting this morning to further discuss this issue, but
unfortunately a number of key people were not able to make it. SMF and
Zones people: Please take a look at the following and see if you can
shoot any holes in it.
---
There is an important assumption that today's automated
Jordan Brown wrote:
Proposal 2:
- Make the new patching service depend on system/filesystem/local.
- Modify patchadd to temporarily enable system/filesystem/local before
patching, and disable it afterward, *if* it is offline. Note that when
the patching service runs, system/filesystem
bart(1M) says about its -R option:
Note - The root file system of any non-global zones
must not be referenced with the -R option. Doing
so might damage the global zone's file system,
might compromise the security of the
Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Jordan Brown wrote:
bart(1M) says about its -R option:
Note - The root file system of any non-global zones
must not be referenced with the -R option. Doing
so might damage the global zone's file system
Nils Goroll wrote:
I suggest to introduce an additional milestone (e.g. milestone/ready)
with optional dependencies on all system services, roughly matching
the time when rc3 is run.
That's much later than is desirable for these patches. The goal is to
have the system as quiet as possible.
[ Which brain-dead mail client turns all of the spaces in the Subject
into tabs? ]
Zones folks: the current proposed answers to this problem involve
moving system/filesystem/local into milestone/single-user. That was
apparently considered and rejected as the answer for the patchadd
problem
Steve Lawrence wrote:
I assume you are targeting this change for s10.
Yes.
The single-user milestone is intended to mimic the traditional unix
run-level 1 (S?)
Nit: Run level 1 is slightly different from S.
This is typically where an admin would run stuff like
fsck (on filesystems that
Steve Lawrence wrote:
A. Make patchadd verify that the system is in single user milestone when
installing a single-user patch.
That's a non-starter. *Many* of our customers ignore our recommendation
to install patches in single-user mode, and will revolt if we attempt to
enforce it.
In
Liane Praza wrote:
It leaves a bad taste
in my mouth, but then again so does the fact that we've got two
different patching systems which require the system to be in different
states when they run.
Three :-)
Well, sort of.
All of them agree that the system should be in single user mode.
Bob Netherton wrote:
And further
refinement would only impact patching rather than the booting process
as a whole.
Hmm. I don't know how to have a service that runs when a particular
milestone is selected, that *doesn't* run when all is selected.
(Other than by dynamically enabling and
Steve Lawrence wrote:
I can't see any straightforward way to interrupt boot without changing the
milestone. You could make lots of services dependent on a patching
service, but that will have a maintenance burden. It also may not play well
with 3rd party services.
Yep.
Hmm. I just
James Carlson wrote:
Jordan Brown writes:
Before diving too far down this rathole... aren't the package scripts
run in the context of the zone?
Yes, for the specific issue of running a script in a zone, but in
general, you can't chroot to $BASEDIR and expect any good to come
Darren Reed wrote:
Hmmm, I think I prefer the bottom one, but I can't see why
either precludes the other as I'm pretty confident no sane
person will ever want a zone name that matches a uuid and
code could easily be written to cover this.
Are zones required to have names?
If so, one case
Depends on whether you want to take the zone down *now* or want the
gradual shutdown behavior of shutdown. Granted, -g0 is pretty abrupt.
Sean McGrath - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
surely use zoneadm halt instead of zlogin ?
along with zoneadm list -p and grep for running zones..
Jordan Brown (Sun) wrote:
You could perhaps install all of the contents of that package (plus any
other packages that are required and similarly situated), and that might
well work.
... but it would of course not be a supported configuration
Anne Moore wrote:
Okay, that's good information. I can then install it manually and things
should work. I'll try in the morning.
You could perhaps install all of the contents of that package (plus any
other packages that are required and similarly situated), and that might
well work.
I'm
Mike Gerdts wrote:
Does updatemanager use patchadd -M under the covers?
No.
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
[ Sorry if this is a repeat. I tried to abort it during the original
send and haven't gotten my own copy, so I think something went a bit
weird. ]
Renaud Manus wrote:
Eric Ham wrote:
I then ran the following Live Upgrade and PCA commands with no errors.
lumake -s sol10-2007-08 -n d2
Renaud Manus wrote:
Jordan Brown wrote:
luupgrade -p does essentially that same set of operations.
lumount+pca+luumount should be OK.
But we (Sun) don't support it.
True (which is why I said we'd prefer you used smpatch), but I believe
that lumount + patchadd -R + luumount *is* supported
Christine Tran wrote:
who -r still works in a zone.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] zonename
zone1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] who -r
. run-level 3 Jan 24 14:53 3 0 S
Yes, but apropos of our earlier discussion around
milestone/multi-user-server, run level 3 doesn't mean all services up.
Glenn Faden wrote:
I understood that. What I didn't understand was why there wasn't a
completely separate instance of the dbus-daemon running in each zone,
with its own rendezvous file for communicating with clients in that
zone. Why would you expect there to be cross-zone communication
dbus-daemon cannot be run in non-global zones
Sure sounds like the question is why not?.
___
zones-discuss mailing list
zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Glenn Faden wrote:
I thought I answered that. The dbus-daemon is using a UNIX domain
rendezvous file in /tmp in the global zone. The non-global zones have
their own instances of /tmp, so the rendezvous file does not exist in
their namespace. Even if it did, there would be other problems
Paul Davis wrote:
Sounds like they want to access the local zone's console directly from a
terminal server? I don't believe there is a concept of that in the zones
model (of course, the local zone's console is normally started with
zlogin -C zonename from the global zone).
Sure sounds
Antonello Cruz wrote:
I would definitely run
zonecfg -z int-sagent-1-z1 info
to check what the zone thinks is the netmask.
Doesn't display a netmask.
I suspect if you haven't defined the '/24' it will pick the default for
the address class. In this case, '/16' IIRC.
Sometimes
Antonello Cruz wrote:
zoneadm: zone 'int-sagent-1-z1': WARNING: bge0:1: no matching subnet
found in netmasks(4) for 172.20.46.188; using default of 255.255.0.0.
How did you setup the IP address for that zone?
Did you use, in zonecfg:
zonecfg:int-sagent-1-z1:net set address=172.20.46.188/24
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does the netmasks entry in /etc/nsswitch.conf say? A common
issue is that a user changes their local /etc/netmasks file but their
the switch says to use something like nis.
Bingo! Thanks!
(I also tried 172.20.0.0 on the theory that maybe it wanted me to set
I get:
zoneadm: zone 'int-sagent-1-z1': WARNING: bge0:1: no matching subnet
found in netmasks(4) for 172.20.46.188; using default of 255.255.0.0.
but my /etc/netmasks (on both the global and local zone) looks good:
172.20.46.0255.255.255.0
(I also tried 172.20.0.0 on the theory that maybe
33 matches
Mail list logo
