Mike Gerdts wrote: ... > > I did some more digging on this. In /usr/sbin/flarcreate we can see > how content_architectures is created. Notice that it will make use of > /var/sadm/system/admin/.platform. The flar I created with SUNWCXall > on a 15k contains: > > PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u > INST_ARCH=sparc > PLATFORM_NAME=SUNW,SPARCstation-fusion > PLATFORM_ID=SUNW,SPARCstation-fusion > IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u > PLATFORM_NAME=FJSV,GP > PLATFORM_ID=FJSV,GP > IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u > PLATFORM_NAME=FJSV,GPUU > PLATFORM_ID=FJSV,GPUU > IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u > PLATFORM_NAME=SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise-10000 > PLATFORM_ID=SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise-10000 > IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u > > If I add the following line to the end: > > PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4v > > Then the flash archive header says: > > content_architectures=sun4u,sun4v > > I don't have a T2000 that I can test a fresh installation on, but when > I create a boot environment with live upgrade, it begins to extract > the archive. In my first run at this it complained about a zone that > I had configured. I've uninstalled that zone and have restarted the > luupgrade. > > This begs the questions: > > Is this a design decision or a bug? >
I went back and researched the specs. Flash was intended to support multiple architectures, provided the master system had them installed. The original project specified adding an "arch" keyword to Jumpstart profiles, which would allow specifying additional architectures when installing a system using packages. There were also to be additional UI pieces for the interactive installer to accomplish same. These have never been implemented, I'd assume because by the time Flash came along, everything but sun4u was well on the way to being removed from support and there was also no plan for anything called sun4v at the time. Now it's an issue again. > Is this currently and over the next year so far out of the norm that > it will be poorly tested and should be avoided? (My guess is that as > people start ramping up on sun4v platforms they will be requesting > exactly what I am after. As I recall, sun4m was pretty obsolete by > the time that live upgrade was introduced so this has not been a major > topic thus far.) > At the moment, we would consider it non-supported, it's certainly not tested, and therefore you probably want to avoid it for now. Dave
