I just wanted to point out that you can modify /etc/patch/pdo.conf and
set num_proc to something higher than the default of 1. This will patch
num_proc zones in parallel when patchadd runs. For example, if you have
many cpus and 10 zones, it shouldn't take much more time than twice what
it took to patch the global alone if you set the value to ten, as they
will all run in parallel. I have a couple of T2000s with a global and 4
container zones. The first (num_proc=1) took hours (4-5) to add about
120 patches. The other system I made sure the parameter above was set
to 5. Patching on that server for the same 120 or so patches (identical
setups) took a little over an hour. You can really see the difference
with the Java patches.
BTW, the parameter is described in the patchadd man page, just search
for parallel.
--Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-
> boun...@lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Diana Orrick
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 3:41 PM
> To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
> Subject: Re: [pca] Kernel Patch 142909-17
>
>
> Thanks for the suggestions everyone, will supply more info when time
> allows.
> Still working on the cluster...
>
> On 10/9/2010 6:18 PM, Rajiv Gunja wrote:
> >
> > You might want to compare the times it took for other patches so
that
> > you know if it will take longer that 13*11*x minutes whet x is some
> > random number which it seems to take for patching zones. If the
> server
> > is ok to run for more time let it run. It took my server 7 hours to
> > patch 200 patches on a server with 3 zones. Sine you have 13 zones
it
> > might take longer.
> > -GGR
> >
> >> On Oct 9, 2010 12:17 PM, "Martin Paul" <mar...@par.univie.ac.at
> >> <mailto:mar...@par.univie.ac.at>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Diana Orrick schrieb:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Any suggestions on how to determine if the patching is
progressing
> >> at all?
> >>
> >> I guess you could use "truss -f -p <PID>" on the PID of the
> >> "patchadd" process to see what's going on.
> >>
> >> If you have to interrupt the patch installation process, the only
> >> "good" thing is that PCA is using plain patchadd for the patch
> >> install, so there's no extra uncertainty added by the fact that you
> >> are using PCA. On the other hand I don't have much practical
> >> experience about how "patchadd" reacts to Ctrl-C. I think that it
> >> should be pretty save to remove the partly installed patch with
> >> "patchrm" afterwards without causing any ill effects.
> >>
> >> Martin.
> >>
> >>
>
> --
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Diana Mayer Orrick, System Administrator
> Information Technology Services, Florida State University
> Contact: orr...@fsu.edu -- (850) 645-8009
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
