On Nov 10, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Paul Hutton wrote:
Solaris 9 8/03 + reasonably current patches is not equal to Solaris 9
12/03.
Yes, I'm aware of that.
I don't know what the specific dependency that SRSS 3 has on 9
12/03, however if you try to log a support call on SRSS3 on 8/03,
you'll
be asked to call back once you've upgraded the OS and can show that the
problem still exists. Even if you just ping this list with a problem,
someone will eventually ask what revision the OS is.
Yup, I'm aware of that too. :)
Minimum OS and patch levels are mandated not as annoyances to
customers,
but to provide a baseline against which a product has been regression
tested, and to ensure that its support doesn't become an NP Complete
problem.
Certainly, and that makes perfect sense for Sun to do. But this is
not my situation; please see below.
So if you want support from Sun (or anyone else), then its a real
requirement.
Perhaps I should've said "real *technical* requirement". I don't
have support contracts on any of my systems; I maintain them myself,
with a soldering iron if necessary.
In short, I know it's not "supported"...I was wondering if it'd
*work*.
Are you aware of Live Upgrade? This can minimise the downtime of going
through an OS upgrade, and if *something dreadful happens* you can
immediately revert to the pre-exisiting configuration.
I've heard of it, but never used it. I'm terrified of doing an OS
upgrade on this machine since I had to jump through some amazing hoops
getting some major GTK-based apps running, and I'm really not looking
forward to that again. This Live Upgrade thang sounds
interesting...can you point me toward some reading material?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire "You'll have to be a lot more specific than
'that
Cape Coral, FL girl last night.'" -Ted McFadden
_______________________________________________
SunRay-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
