mary ding wrote:
> Jan and Ethan:
> 
> line1-hpdc5750 and line1-dellp350 hangs and install cannot continue.  So 
> we need swap for 768 MB and 1024 MB.

Its interesting that it failed with the 1024Mb system, but others
with less memory succeeded.  This could mean its all just a bit
random to begin with.

Thanks for trying these out.  I'll look forward to the results
from tonight's Sparc tests with 1.25Gb and 1.5Gb memory.


thanks,
-ethan

> 
> I will try to setup VB and get some data between 1.1 GB to 1.5 GB.
> 
> 
> 
> mary ding wrote:
>> Jan and Ethan:
>>
>> These are the AI install results with 109 after deleting swap:
>>
>> line1-hpdc5750 - 768 MB -  IPS download still in progress
>> line1-hpdx2300 - 896 MB -  Isntall is sucessful and there is no 
>> corruption of solaris.zlib
>> line1-hpdc5700 - 1016 MB - Install is successful and there is no 
>> corruption of solaris.zlib
>> line1-acer6900 - 999 MB - Install is successful and there is no 
>> corruption of solaris.zlib
>> line1-hpdc7600 - 1016 MB - Install is successful and there is no 
>> corruption of solaris.zlib
>> line1-dellp350 - 1024 MB - IPS download still in progress
>>
>>
>> The line1-dellp350 had:
>>
>> The physical processor has 2 virtual processors (0 1)
>>   x86 (GenuineIntel F27 family 15 model 2 step 7 clock 3050 MHz)
>>     Intel(r) Pentium(r) 4 CPU 3.06GHz
>>
>> The line1-hpdc5750 had:
>>
>> The physical processor has 2 virtual processors (0 1)
>>   x86 (AuthenticAMD 40FB2 family 15 model 75 step 2 clock 2000 MHz)
>>     AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> jan damborsky wrote:
>>> Hi Mary,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/25/09 19:30, mary ding wrote:
>>>> Jan:
>>>>
>>>> I am doing AI Install on the following x86 machines now with b109:
>>>>
>>>> 768 MB, 896 MB, 999 MB, 1016 MB and 1024 MB
>>>
>>> I am curios about the results - based on my observations
>>> done when I tested fix for 4166 (around build 107) I assume
>>> that first two would fail.
>>> We will see how things changed :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks for trying this !
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I delete the zfs swap and now it is downloading IPS packages from 
>>>> the repo.  If I leave the zfs swap around, then corruption will 
>>>> occur.  I did the checksum after install to verify they are the same 
>>>> as the solaris.zlib on the server to find out whether I run into 6804.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jan damborsky wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mary,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/25/09 18:38, mary ding wrote:
>>>>>> Ethan and William:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Ethan about this.  We shouldn't require user to do 
>>>>>> anything manual or customize manifest to workaround this ugly zfs 
>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, this is what I found out for sparc and x86.  I hit this 
>>>>>> bug everytime when my system had more than 700 MB for sparc and 
>>>>>> x86.  With 512 MB, the install works but it is very slow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With system that had 1 GB of memory, if I delete zfs swap, IPS 
>>>>>> install will fail and run out of memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you happen to know if the behavior is the same
>>>>> for sparc & x86 systems with 1GB of memory ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am asking, since after fix for 4166 bug was integrated,
>>>>> AI is supposed to work on x86 systems with 1GB of memory
>>>>> without swap device. If it fails for you, might I please
>>>>> take a look at x86 machine in question ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I do this on system with 2 GB of memory and delete zfs swap, 
>>>>>> the install works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you need any help testing the workaround, I will be happy to 
>>>>>> try them out since I had machines available for testing purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ethan Quach wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Schumann wrote:
>>>>>>>> RE: Bugzilla bug 6084 AI fails due to solaris.zlib becoming 
>>>>>>>> corrupt during install
>>>>>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6804
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 6817316 data corruption seen with swapping to a zvol
>>>>>>>> http://monaco.sfbay/detail.jsf?cr=6817316
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem occurs when a ZFS volume is used for swap in the 
>>>>>>>> Automated Installer.  There is an alternative swap solution - to 
>>>>>>>> use a slice for swap instead of a ZFS volume.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, AI follows the logic of creating swap on a ZFS volume 
>>>>>>>> if there is enough space.  If not, the target partition (x86) or 
>>>>>>>> disk (SPARC) slice 1 will be used for swap if there is enough 
>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What I propose here to add a feature: a new AI manifest element 
>>>>>>>> <target_device_swap_slice_number>, which would force the 
>>>>>>>> creation of swap on an indicated slice instead of on a ZFS volume.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a workaround, but this solution would seem to require that
>>>>>>> the user manually do something to work around the issue after 
>>>>>>> hitting
>>>>>>> it.  Could we devise a work around that works out of the box?  Or at
>>>>>>> least works out of the box for most scenarios?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, for systems with XX Gb memory, we could still create 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> swap zvol, and just not add it during the microroot.  I think Mary's
>>>>>>> found that XX so far equals 2Gb, but she doesn't really have any
>>>>>>> systems with anything between 1Gb and 2Gb of memory.  With some VBox
>>>>>>> testing perhaps we can find that number to be something smaller, and
>>>>>>> then our bug case would only be for systems with memory between
>>>>>>> 700Mb and XXGb --and only there would we institute some really
>>>>>>> ugly hack.  For those cases we could resort to what you've described
>>>>>>> above, or just move our 700Mb number up to XXGb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>> -ethan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An advantage of this approach is that, since we are as yet 
>>>>>>>> uncertain of which configurations will exhibit bug 6084, there 
>>>>>>>> is a simple manual configuration change to work around it.  It 
>>>>>>>> would also serve as an AI feature (although perhaps not a 
>>>>>>>> terribly interesting one).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would estimate a day of work to code this and do unit 
>>>>>>>> testing.  The additional risk would be small.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will mention here that the swapping to a zvol bug needs to be 
>>>>>>>> fixed, and that perhaps we shouldn't be thinking in terms of a 
>>>>>>>> workaround, but a high priority fix.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any feedback would be appreciated,
>>>>>>>> William
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> caiman-discuss mailing list
>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss

Reply via email to