Thanks Don. I figured it out. Both Nevada and Indiana don't have the
pdo.conf file, Indiana because its using IPS and Nevada because its old.
My Solaris 10 U9 machine has it because its current.
Ron
On 10/12/10 04:55, Don O'Malley wrote:
Hi Ron,
If you are running Open Solaris, then you will be using the new IPS
(Image Packaging System - i.e. pkg command) as opposed to patchadd to
apply updates to your system for the core OS???
See http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+pkg/WebHome for
details or look at the pkg man page on your OpenSolaris system.
Best,
-Don
Ron Halstead wrote:
David,
Me again. On my system (Nevada 129), there is no /etc/patch/pdo.conf,
just patch.conf and secret.conf.
Ron Halstead
On 10/11/10 03:28, Don O'Malley wrote:
Hi David,
Good point re: num_proc.
The maximum recommended value for num_proc is 1.5 * <number of
processors on the system (i.e. output of psrinfo)>
So, for example a T2000 with psrinfo like this:
# psrinfo
0 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:39
1 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
2 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
3 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
4 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
5 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
6 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
7 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
8 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
9 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
10 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
11 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
12 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
13 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
14 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
15 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
16 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
17 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
18 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
19 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
20 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
21 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
22 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
23 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
24 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
25 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
26 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
27 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
28 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
29 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
30 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
31 on-line since 07/13/2010 15:45:40
#
could have a maximum value of num_proc=48
Obviously, the correct setting for num_proc depends on the number of
zones you have on your system (there's no point in setting num_proc
higher than the number of zones you have).
HTH,
-Don
French, David wrote:
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
<http://www.oracle.com/>
*Don O'Malley*
Manager,Patch System Test
Revenue Product Engineering | Solaris | Hardware
East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland
Phone: +353 1 8199764
Team Alias: rpe_patch_system_test...@oracle.com
<mailto:rpe_patch_system_test...@oracle.com>
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>
