Re: [osol-discuss] Opera drops browser support for Solaris
On 04/30/10 08:22 AM, Stefan Parvu wrote: With the right portability framework, it is sufficient to develop on Solaris and the code will work on Linux and FreeBSD also. True. However I dont see Opera's troubles caused by Oracle integration: support costs, etc but rather a more simplistic view: not enough interest. If they were interested enough they would have selected OSOL and start building on that. As well in past: Opera was not showing enough interest in Solaris , so main question would be how to keep them interested in our project and how to grow such things and engage with other communities. Thats the hard part. desktop volume drives desktop application vendor interest if not being helped by the lower volume platform's time/money. pretty simple business decision. as much as we would like to think otherwise, we are, in their minds, a niche player. rich stefan ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] application roll-back with pkg
hi all - Im having momentary(i hope) brain death. can i and if so how do i, roll-back an application upgraded via packagemanager?? because it was simply an application upgrade no new BE was created... TIA, rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] application roll-back with pkg
Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: hi all - Im having momentary(i hope) brain death. can i and if so how do i, roll-back an application upgraded via packagemanager?? because it was simply an application upgrade no new BE was created... Rollback functionality for individual packages is not currently available. Cheers, ack... then warnings need to be issued, so my choice is delete and reinstall old version??? rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] virtualbox 3.0.12 IPS?
Allan - is .10 still available??? all i see is .12 in the IPS and it broke some things, i need to reinstall .10 ASAP... rich Alan Steinberg wrote: OK, it is now available! -- Alan Alan Steinberg wrote: We hope to have the IPS version up in the next day or so. I don't think you would want to manually download and install the tarballs from the virtualbox.org website, since you would first have to uninstall the IPS version, then uninstall the tarball when you switch back to the IPS version. I would recommend just waiting the extra day or so. -- Alan keithk wrote: Hi: I have not been able to upgrade my virtualbox 3.0.12 because the IPS version has not been made available through the sun extra repository. Is there any way I can do a manual upgrade from my existing IPS package? Thanks, Keith ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] package manager - installation dir
there is also a best practices page at: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/policies/install-locations/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] dev repository issues??
Hi all - where do we need to log issues with the dev repository??? I have tried to fetch some things and every fetch breaks in the same way, even after flushing my download cache... so i suspect broken files, because if it was network, it would not likely be a break at the same place... thanx, rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] dev repository issues??
Shawn - thanx for the quick turn on this... frankly i had tried to send thw original mail three time in the last week, and it never made to the list so thanx also to Derek for fixing that... yes, im running 118, was this in the release notes and i missed it(not so unusual), or is it a post release issue??? so thanx for the redirection, i was under the false assumption that pkg-discuss was about IPS as a technology not the implementation at the repository level... i will try the work-around and if not successful i will post to the appropriate lists. thanx again, rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: Hi all - where do we need to log issues with the dev repository??? Report them to the pkg-discuss mailing list. I have tried to fetch some things and every fetch breaks in the same way, even after flushing my download cache... so i suspect broken files, because if it was network, it would not likely be a break at the same place... Are you running build 118 and are you seeing timeout errors? If so, due to a known issue, you'll have to set an environment variable before running the pkg command: export PKG_CLIENT_TIMEOUT=900 Where 900 is the number of seconds to wait before timing out. See bug 10010 for the timeout issue. Alternatively, describe your issues in detail. Cheers, ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Newbie needs help please.
This is actually not so hard, depending on the version of Vista you have. you need a USB stick with a FAT32 formated partition, which my version of Vista will do just fine, put the network driver bits on it and run the OpenSolaris install as expected... you can then install the network drivers from the USB stick, and fetch the NTFS bits if you want to from the OpenSolaris booted from the new installed partition... hth, rich Rong Shen wrote: Hi there: I am running a live OpenSolaris CD on my existing Windows Vista machine installed on Dell Dimension E521. OpenSolaris live CD does not have driver for the onboard BroadCom 4401 ethernet device. I downloaded the NIC driver for it on the hard drive, but I am unable to find and consequently unable to mount the hard drive that contains my Windows Vista files. What should I do now? Thanks for any help. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Petition
no, but it does show community/customer support!!! rich Alexander Vlasov wrote: Well, feel free to consider this flame, but I haven't seen any business decision being influenced by online petition. Octave Orgeron wrote: I don't mean to stir up any flame wars or for this to be spam. I setup a petition for people to sign to show support for Sun staying independent: http://www.petitiononline.com/smi09/petition.html I just ask that people show their support for Sun taking the high-road and working through these tough economic times, instead of selling out. Thanks! *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Octave J. Orgeron Solaris Virtualization Architect and Consultant Web: http://unixconsole.blogspot.com E-Mail: unixcons...@yahoo.com *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE b110 issues...
Well i dont know... I got another wget copy, it looked like a real ISO, .install_config looked normal, and it luupgrades just fine... bash-3.2$ uname -a SunOS nuptse 5.11 snv_110 i86pc i386 i86pc bash-3.2$ more /etc/rel* Solaris Express Community Edition snv_110 X86 Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 09 March 2009 bash-3.2$ I would chalk it up to pilot error, but i have done this way tooo many times in the past... rich Rich Reynolds wrote: followed the wget workaround as pointed to by derek's osol announcement... wget -O bleen http://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_SMI-Site/en_US/-/USD/VerifyItem-Start/sol-nv-b110-x86-dvd.iso?BundledLineItemUUID=M3pIBe.metMAAAEgMkw6UUAYOrderID=vqRIBe.mBesAAAEgFEw6UUAYProductID=kyVIBe.ocmEgy9xJIQyEFileName=/sol-nv-b110-x86-dvd.iso that was a copy and paste off https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_SMI-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewFilteredProducts-SingleVariationTypeFilter HTH, rich Alan Steinberg wrote: Hi Rich. I'm looking into it now. Can you give the specific path you gave for wget? Or what you chose for image type (SPARC or x86, single or split image)? -- Alan Rich Reynolds wrote: hi all -- anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO from the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike the install media, but NOT an ISO... ok... so just think a little different and point luupgrade at the directory... .install_config is not the normal symlink but a zero length file.. ok... .install_config used to point to ./Solaris11/Misc/.install_config ok... make it so, and luupgrade again... 13 pkgs that cant upgrade from b108 because their .install_configs are broken... not so ok... still working on fixing them... rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] SXCE b110 issues...
hi all -- anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO from the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike the install media, but NOT an ISO... ok... so just think a little different and point luupgrade at the directory... .install_config is not the normal symlink but a zero length file.. ok... .install_config used to point to ./Solaris11/Misc/.install_config ok... make it so, and luupgrade again... 13 pkgs that cant upgrade from b108 because their .install_configs are broken... not so ok... still working on fixing them... rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE b110 issues...
followed the wget workaround as pointed to by derek's osol announcement... wget -O bleen http://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_SMI-Site/en_US/-/USD/VerifyItem-Start/sol-nv-b110-x86-dvd.iso?BundledLineItemUUID=M3pIBe.metMAAAEgMkw6UUAYOrderID=vqRIBe.mBesAAAEgFEw6UUAYProductID=kyVIBe.ocmEgy9xJIQyEFileName=/sol-nv-b110-x86-dvd.iso that was a copy and paste off https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_SMI-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewFilteredProducts-SingleVariationTypeFilter HTH, rich Alan Steinberg wrote: Hi Rich. I'm looking into it now. Can you give the specific path you gave for wget? Or what you chose for image type (SPARC or x86, single or split image)? -- Alan Rich Reynolds wrote: hi all -- anyone else having issues with b110 of SXCE??? I wget the ISO from the SDLC and unzip it to find a directory of stuff, not unlike the install media, but NOT an ISO... ok... so just think a little different and point luupgrade at the directory... .install_config is not the normal symlink but a zero length file.. ok... .install_config used to point to ./Solaris11/Misc/.install_config ok... make it so, and luupgrade again... 13 pkgs that cant upgrade from b108 because their .install_configs are broken... not so ok... still working on fixing them... rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] /usr/bin/mkcd vs /usr/share/man/mkcd
Hi all -- In which SXCE did the executable mkcd fall off the distro but not the man page??? I had not used it in a while, but it seems that at least in b110 there is a man entry for it pointing to /usr/bin/mkcd but no one is home there... rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] 107 in Vbox graphics issues
Hi all - i IPS upgraded my 106 Vbox environmen to 107 and the new one will not boot to a graphics login, in fact if the console=graphics entry exists I dont even get -v messages from the kernel... so it seems to be in that never-never land of whose issue is it Vbox or OS107??? worked fine in 106... thoughts?? rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] 107 in Vbox graphics issues
2.1.4!!! rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: Hi all - i IPS upgraded my 106 Vbox environmen to 107 and the new one will not boot to a graphics login, in fact if the console=graphics entry exists I dont even get -v messages from the kernel... so it seems to be in that never-never land of whose issue is it Vbox or OS107??? worked fine in 106... Are you running VirtualBox 2.1.2? If so, upgrade to 2.1.4. Cheers, ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
Ok time for the credit given where due... the upgrade to 107 is the first +1 upgrade I have done that wasnt seemingly a wholesale replacement. I my case the 106-107 upgrade needed about half as much download size as the 105-106 upgrade... WAY BETTER rich ich Reynolds wrote: sorry --- i mis-typed that upgrade was from 105 to 106, I have been trying to justify a base system upgrade to IPS based 107, but still can't.. I just keep compiling my own it's just like SunOS 3.5 days.. build Unix from Source!!! rich Rich Reynolds wrote: shawn - while things have changed... the fact that a IPS upgrade from b106 to b107 involved 600+MB of download tells me that the model is still substantially a WOS. I can understand that in a substantial upgrade like 2008.05 to .11, but a basic two week development effort results in 600+ MB of new code??? so if you hadn't guessed im still not a huge fan of the IPS repository model... my base system is SXCE 101, with LU's back to 88, and I keep hoping I can migrate to IPS and BE, because it has the potential for substantially smaller bandwidth requirements, but... its potentially better than SXCE, but nowhere near as atomic as BFU... just a view from the dark, rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: Greg - thanx for the clarification... my intent was only to suggest that the old BWOS train model that Sun has used for MANY years many no longer hold them in good stead and that should a better distro model come about, which finally views a distro as nothing more than an integrated base set of code, a simple and granular repository, and an easy to use install/upgrade method, OpenSolaris.org based systems could truly compete for the desktop with the likes of a Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. Dont get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool SunOS guy, from SunOS3.2 on, but the release engineering world and the nature of the customer base has changed and we as a community need to help all the opensolaris.org based distros compete more effectively or perish under our own weight... I have to ask, haven't you noticed how significantly the model has already changed and is continuing to change with the OpenSolaris 200x releases? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
Hi all - so for grins i went and fetched their BM suite... guess what -- no call to compliers!! all php and xml and some fairly standard sh scripts so guess in whose lap optimization of executables lands... just some added facts to the fray.. ill build and run it on my old/slow/cheap deskside some time this week rich Martin Bochnig wrote: gregorylpal...@netscape.net wrote: Hi Jörg, The bottom line is it doesn't matter who made the mistakes or why, in the end the user sees them as negative marks on OpenSolaris. If incorrect optimizations on OpenSolaris are causing a negative perception of OpenSolaris then we need to change that, especially if the software is coming out of an OpenSolaris repo. If they compiled the software with an old version of a compiler because that's what ships with OpenSolaris then that also needs to be addressed. If the problem is that the version of the compiler is old, then it needs to be updated. Most users do not care about the whys, they just want it to work and work fast and well. Regards, Greg Greg, it may be okay to have such an user-experience-is-the-only-thing-that-counts-approach of viewing things. Only 2 objections: * Then you could also bring a few MS-Windows versions and MacOS X and BSD into the game (if you continue to state that all different sorts of fruits can be directly compared, because the user doesn't care about the technical details ...) * Then it might be called Different philosophies of how to solve problems, rather than LinUX versus OpenSolaris Benchmark Don't you want to agree that you have a to broad definition of benchmark ? -- %m ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
also two revs of he BM have happened since that article.. rich ken mays wrote: The benchmark cannot be called a benchmark, as it does not mention what software has been compiled in which way (e.g. which optimizer options have been in effect). For this reason, all performance differences mey be a result of applying different optimization when creating the test binaries. Jörg Hi Jörg, The performance differences might be 100% due to the version of the compiler and optimizations used. My point would be in what way is this significant to a user who sees their audio files take 50% longer to encode on one product versus the other? Do you think the average user will care about those details or just the net result? Regards, Greg Ref: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=os_threeway_2008num=8 You are right in that the common 'user' just sees the end (i.e. 'net') result - not the bottom-feeding details. Based on the Nov 24 benchmark results I read last year, let us think about this article a bit more. I'll point this out: Are the OS 2008.11 benchmarked performance results 'fixable' if a someone was to use the RIGHT compiler with the RIGHT optimizations to the challenge the benchmarks? That is my 'magic cookie' question. The previous benchmark test of Nov 24, 2008 seemed to mention: If simply counting which operating system was in first place most frequently, it would be Ubuntu. Ubuntu 8.10 x86_64 was in first place eight times, OpenSolaris 2008.11 RC2 was in first place seven times, and FreeBSD 7.1 Beta 2 AMD64 was in first just three tests. - Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris vs. FreeBSD Benchmarks, Published on November 24, 2008, Written by Michael Larabel. So what happened here?!? I see these Nov 24th benchmarks tell a different story than the newer February 09, 2009 benchmarks. If we look at FreeBSD 7.1 (final) and OS 2008.11-b107 on today's terms and rerun these tests for ourselves - we'd hope to see OS-2008.11-b107 in those same favorable results? Right? Now, if we take Mac OS 10.5.6 and OS 2008.11-b107 and run these same benchmarks - would we still think the OS 2008.11-b107 benchmarks were all faulty by optimizations? Challenge Phoronix to recompare the benchmarks using Mac OS X 10.5.6 and OS 2008.11-b107, and Ubuntu 8.10_64 on the same hardware. We can even toss in a benchmark for the optimized application binaries for OS 2008.11. Let us see if the 'optimization theory' really was the problem versus the 'out-of-the-box' debate... :o) ~ Ken Mays ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
it is never the benchmarker's job to apologized for the inadequatices of the benchmarked products. now I will give to the point that they compared apples and oranges, at the level of detail we understand, but as the market/marketing seems to imply the products are competitive and comparable... many products in the market today do not meet the market/marketing expectations rich Martin Bochnig wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:01 PM, paul p...@subsignal.org wrote: Joerg Schilling schrieb: The concern is why so slow 'here and here' and how do we fix it? As long as there is no evidence that the speed difference is a result of using OpenSolaris, I would asume that it is caused by different optimization. Are you saying the phoronix guys have somehow manipulated the shipped product (opensolaris 2008.11) to make it look bad? cheers Paul :::GraphicsMagick::: part of the results (mamy times slower than linUX ...) Look: They compared an operating system distro with a 1.5.x based Xorg with native driver support (not vesa), glx and drm enabled, versus an operating system with Xorg server 1.3, ***may***be native driver support or not, and drm and glx maybe not enabled. While it is true that Sun should ensure, that Indiana always ships with the very latest Xorg, the most recent drivers / hw support and so on (what they now exactly did and delivered in an update), this can only be one part of the matter. In their test-report they could have written something like unfortunately, 2008.11 only ships with obsolete xserver 1.3 bla bla, we will be happy to repeat the test under EQUAL conditions. INSTEAD they compared a car with 2 cylinders defunct with another vendor's car with all 8 cylinders active. When you are going to review different vendor's lamps, you should ensure that both lamps get electricity. And in case one of them doesn't, at the minimum they have to mention it. Not doing so and simply publishing the results makes them appear not trustworthy and throws a shadow over them, rather then over the loser of their benchmark. What they did: They compared a Intel cpu with all caches enabled with an AMD cpu with L2 disabled. Then they claimed Intel is twice as fast in all but one tests bla nonsense bla ! %m ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris install on x4150?
no it was clear the problem was not nwam, but its maintainance state, was a good indicator as to the real problem... and as with many problems, a bigger hammer usually helps... thanx, rich James Carlson wrote: Rich Reynolds writes: I had a similar problem on different hardware, and found that hand plumbing the interface and re-enable nwam served as a sufficient work around... svcadm clear nwam is the simpler work-around. The real problem here isn't nwam, but the device subsystem, which (inconsistently) requires all privileges in order to open the DLD control node early in boot. The fix (integrated into build 109) is to make nwamd open the device using all privileges (sigh). ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
Martin - I firmly beg to differ... the tests were done with out of the box released versions in that there is no mention of doing ubuntu package upgrades. this is just an artifact of Sun's release engineering schedule. should another distribution of the opensolaris.org code base opt to include all the additional features that are mentioned then not including that distro would be damning on the part of the testers. this article simply points out the need for aggressive development of targeted distributions or far better coordination of project release cycles... just a thought, rich Martin Bochnig wrote: Also take into consideration, that 2008.11 still used Xorg server 1.3 (rather than 1.5.x), and that DRM is only available for a limited set of cards on opensolaris, and that - even on supported hw - direct rendering might not been have enabled by default. (Whereas on modern Linux distros all those things are the other way around.) The X11 system is half an OS itself. That's what some professional benchmarking experts do not even mention in theirs misleading summary of results. They should at least give Indiana 2008.11 another try after having installed the latest upgrades from the Sun X11-group and fox-gate, which brings the X-server to version 1.5.3 and also updates most graphics drivers to their newest versions. Also Mesa OpenGL has been upgraded in the interim (since 2008.11 was released). Where in that benchmark is being talked about this? %martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] OpenSolaris install on x4150?
Hi all - I had a similar problem on different hardware, and found that hand plumbing the interface and re-enable nwam served as a sufficient work around... hth, rich Alexander Vlasov wrote: Hello, this is known P2 bug, see http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6331 Actually nwam fails and machin doesn't boots up into normal state. Kristian Rink wrote: Folks; trying to boot (or even install) a recent OpenSolaris build (off genunix.org) on an x4150 machine, but so far failed in a rather simple way: Booting up the machine using the live medium works well, but in the end, a text based console is all I eventually get on this machine, also no messages whatsoever stating what eventually could prevent the GUI from coming up. Unfortunately so far I haven't figured out how to do a GUI-less OpenSolaris installation... So, can some kind soul point me where to peek to either get the OpenSolaris UI up and working on a Sun x4150 or (which I would prefer) how to do an OpenSolaris install from a text based console? Thanks in advance and all the best, Kristian ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
Greg - thanx for the clarification... my intent was only to suggest that the old BWOS train model that Sun has used for MANY years many no longer hold them in good stead and that should a better distro model come about, which finally views a distro as nothing more than an integrated base set of code, a simple and granular repository, and an easy to use install/upgrade method, OpenSolaris.org based systems could truly compete for the desktop with the likes of a Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. Dont get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool SunOS guy, from SunOS3.2 on, but the release engineering world and the nature of the customer base has changed and we as a community need to help all the opensolaris.org based distros compete more effectively or perish under our own weight... rich Greg Palmer wrote: Martin Bochnig wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Rich Reynolds r...@redstar-assoc.com wrote: Martin - I firmly beg to differ... the tests were done with out of the box released versions in that there is no mention of doing ubuntu package upgrades. this is just an artifact of Sun's release engineering schedule. should another distribution of the opensolaris.org code base opt to include all the additional features that are mentioned then not including that distro would be damning on the part of the testers. ... Rich, are you then even suggesting, that - in case the graphics chip on that box would have been too modern for native Xorg-driver support in Xorg server-version 1.3 as shipped in 2008.11 with all the older matching ddx module versions (pre-libpciaccess era) - that the benchmark results from OpenSolaris running Xorg 1.3 with vesa-fallback driver should directly be compared to the results from other OS'es and being sold as / propagated as (with no specific comment) The Solaris results (so damn poor) versus The Linux xyz vers. N.2 results (Verry fast)? Hi Martin, I think that it's fair to do the comparison they did, even if I hate the results. The fact is people getting OpenSolaris or Linux get a particular distribution. This compares two of those distributions. Sure there are times when it hurts one side or the other more based on where they are in the release schedule. In this case, the Linux was ahead of OpenSolaris in incorporating new video enhancements and so they got much better benchmark results. That's fair. What we need to do is understand how these performance disparities can be addressed. Video enhancements not yet on the desktop for OpenSolaris means taking a look at if there is a problem or if it is just because Linux had a head start. If they weren't there because the process isn't moving quickly enough on OpenSolaris then we need to figure out how to improve that. On the other hand, if the performance disparities are because there are system functions which might not be as optimized as they could be we need to understand and address that. I believe that is all Rich is saying... Regards, Greg ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
shawn - while things have changed... the fact that a IPS upgrade from b106 to b107 involved 600+MB of download tells me that the model is still substantially a WOS. I can understand that in a substantial upgrade like 2008.05 to .11, but a basic two week development effort results in 600+ MB of new code??? so if you hadn't guessed im still not a huge fan of the IPS repository model... my base system is SXCE 101, with LU's back to 88, and I keep hoping I can migrate to IPS and BE, because it has the potential for substantially smaller bandwidth requirements, but... its potentially better than SXCE, but nowhere near as atomic as BFU... just a view from the dark, rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: Greg - thanx for the clarification... my intent was only to suggest that the old BWOS train model that Sun has used for MANY years many no longer hold them in good stead and that should a better distro model come about, which finally views a distro as nothing more than an integrated base set of code, a simple and granular repository, and an easy to use install/upgrade method, OpenSolaris.org based systems could truly compete for the desktop with the likes of a Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. Dont get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool SunOS guy, from SunOS3.2 on, but the release engineering world and the nature of the customer base has changed and we as a community need to help all the opensolaris.org based distros compete more effectively or perish under our own weight... I have to ask, haven't you noticed how significantly the model has already changed and is continuing to change with the OpenSolaris 200x releases? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
sorry --- i mis-typed that upgrade was from 105 to 106, I have been trying to justify a base system upgrade to IPS based 107, but still can't.. I just keep compiling my own it's just like SunOS 3.5 days.. build Unix from Source!!! rich Rich Reynolds wrote: shawn - while things have changed... the fact that a IPS upgrade from b106 to b107 involved 600+MB of download tells me that the model is still substantially a WOS. I can understand that in a substantial upgrade like 2008.05 to .11, but a basic two week development effort results in 600+ MB of new code??? so if you hadn't guessed im still not a huge fan of the IPS repository model... my base system is SXCE 101, with LU's back to 88, and I keep hoping I can migrate to IPS and BE, because it has the potential for substantially smaller bandwidth requirements, but... its potentially better than SXCE, but nowhere near as atomic as BFU... just a view from the dark, rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: Greg - thanx for the clarification... my intent was only to suggest that the old BWOS train model that Sun has used for MANY years many no longer hold them in good stead and that should a better distro model come about, which finally views a distro as nothing more than an integrated base set of code, a simple and granular repository, and an easy to use install/upgrade method, OpenSolaris.org based systems could truly compete for the desktop with the likes of a Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. Dont get me wrong, I am a dyed in the wool SunOS guy, from SunOS3.2 on, but the release engineering world and the nature of the customer base has changed and we as a community need to help all the opensolaris.org based distros compete more effectively or perish under our own weight... I have to ask, haven't you noticed how significantly the model has already changed and is continuing to change with the OpenSolaris 200x releases? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Phoronix Linux vs OpenSolaris benchmark
this IS what IPS has shown as the potential... the implementation is as usual slow to be manifested, and from the outside we see little(as we should for a distro) of the release process.. that is the secret sauce that makes a disto work... I wait with baited breath, rich Shawn Walker wrote: Rich Reynolds wrote: shawn - while things have changed... the fact that a IPS upgrade from b106 to b107 involved 600+MB of download tells me that the model is still substantially a WOS. I can understand that in a substantial upgrade like 2008.05 to .11, but a basic two week development effort results in 600+ MB of new code??? so if you hadn't guessed im still not a huge fan of the IPS repository model... my base system is SXCE 101, with LU's back to 88, and I keep hoping I can migrate to IPS and BE, because it has the potential for substantially smaller bandwidth requirements, but... its potentially better than SXCE, but nowhere near as atomic as BFU... You're confusing shortcomings in the build and upgrade process with a perceived lack of change when it comes to download size. Those download sizes will be significantly reduced in the future. Cheers, ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] default shipped partition sizes on sun X2100 boxes.
did you wade through the docs here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/x2100??? rich Mark Blackman wrote: Hi, I wonder if anyone can help with an unusual query. I've good reason to believe i've modified my partition sizes on a Solaris 10 X2100 box. (for one, I can no longer boot Solaris 10). To confirm or refute this, I wonder if anyone can can post their fdisk output from a straight Sun-shipped-and-preinstalled Solaris 10 X2100 box, please? This one was a basic Opteron model with a single Hitachi 80GB drive. I do realise this is an opensolaris list, but I suspect there may be a few of you with access to straight solaris boxes, that were pre-installed. On the other hand, if someone is kind enough to point me at a more solaris 10 focussed list, I'd be grateful. Mark Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] T: 0207 778 9311 F: 0207 329 7555 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [laptop-discuss] Minix in VirtualBox
this is not a good place for this. if you look to virtualbox.org, you will find a whole set of forums for discussion of guest OS's. in fact there is a minix3 community of users there. good luck, rich kevin wrote: Sorry, since I'm new to this forum, I don't know where should I ask this question. Firstly, thanks to all that help me figure out how to suspend the solaris on my laptop. It's so fast to suspend it. I am wondering now, why XP suspends itself so slow and write so lot of things to the disk. I saw my disk keeps on writing when suspend XP and I don't know what it writes. Secondly, about VirtualBox. I am reading the book The Unix Programming Environment written by Kernighan and Pike 24 years ago. Most of its content are dated, but still it's a very nice reading. In order to practice some examples, I decided to run a Minix 3 in VirtualBox, because Minix has a more similar internal system calls like the one described in the book. Now my problem is: I can't even shutdown Minix. It keeps on rebooting after shutdown. I don't know if it is my mistake in configuring VirtualBox or it's the problem inside Minix and VirtualBox. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ laptop-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /etc/release on Solaris Express
What does release mean when describing a probably patched system??? last time i looked at an old Solaris 10 u5 system, 'uname' gave me the base OS install '10_u5', but not even the patch ID of the kernel jumbo patch. and what about all the other patches that have been applied??? are they important??? I suspect that the level of information granularity you can expect is 10_u5 from Solaris 10 and snv_xxx from opensolaris, given that it IS an engineering build... But JC is correct your are messing with fire if you expect that parsing /etc/release will be a long term solution... good luck, rich Andrew Wasilczuk wrote: James Carlson wrote: However, I'd say that if you're using the contents of /etc/release to make any automated decisions, then you're pretty much on your own. Those aren't in any way stable interfaces -- we don't commit to any sort of stability in the text contained in that file, or the even the formatting of the text, other than to say that it should be readable by a human who understands English. If we wanted to change these four lines to read: Sorry We Broke You ... there'd be no real impediment to doing it. ;-} I recommend using something else to perform whatever test it is that you're performing -- or find a way to avoid the test entirely. Thanks James, this makes sense. The software I'd like to patch is called facter[1], which I use with puppet[2] to automate the management of our freebsd servers. Now I'd like to use it with opensolaris. Facter basically returns facts about the operating system, such as the hostname, kernel version etc. The previous release worked fine, but since the new version they've added the operatingsystemrelease fact to solaris 10 (which uses /etc/release) and it broke on opensolaris because the formating is different. On my solaris 10 box the operatingsystemrelease fact returns 10_u5. I guess on opensolaris this should be set to snv_XX (which, I can take from uname so no problem). On Solaris 10 what's the best place to get the exact release from (including the update number) other than from /etc/release? Cheers, Andrew. [1] http://reductivelabs.com/trac/facter [2] http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Jumpstart Setup
where have you looked??? and what are you looking for??? try here to start... http://onesearch.sun.com/search/onesearch/index.jsp?col=community-bigadminadvanced=truereslang=zh_cnreslang=zh_twreslang=enreslang=fireslang=frreslang=dereslang=itreslang=jareslang=koreslang=ptreslang=rureslang=esreslang=svdoctype=pdfdoctype=htmldoctype=xmldoctype=plaincs=falserf=0required=jumpstart rich Paul Ross wrote: I am trying to setup a jumpstart from my thinkpad T20, onto an Ultra 10 workstation.I have looked tho' the forums but not found what I am looking for, anyone able to point me in the general direction would be greatly appreciated, cheers -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SATA support for SPARC (not for booting though)
Should already be there, given that Sun Blade T6300's have SATA as an option (LSI SAS1068E controller) rich rich Javier O. Augusto wrote: Peeps, Anyone knows what's the state of SATA support for SPARC(for both Solaris 05/08 and OpenSolaris)? I don't need booting off SATA as I have SCSI but I would like to use a couple of 160MiB SATA disks I have. Something very simple like a 4 ports Sil 3114 would do it for my purposes (aka /export/home). Thanks in advance. Cheers, Javier ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] LU doesn't work with ZFS
James Carlson wrote: CLF writes: LU effectively disappears in the OpenSolaris distribution (replaced by 'beadm' and IPS snap upgrades), so that's mostly a no. It is currently present in Solaris Express, though. Is the source available for the various LU components, or is it likely ever to be made available? I've been having some interesting problems with LU that I would like to track down the cause for, and the the error messages are frankly not the best. No. As previously mentioned, we do not have the right to publish the source. It belongs to someone else. It will _never_ be open. that said - LARGE portions of the LiveUpgrade system are simply shell scripts, really big scripts, but scripts, some in the 100K LOC, have a browse in /usr/lib/lu in solaris 10 and solaris express... but dont work too hard, it's life expectancy is short... rich Sorry. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Whither OpenSolaris?
James Carlson wrote: Mike Meyer writes: it. What I found was flat out scary. To wit, from the project overview page: ... the OpenSolaris project does not provide an end-user product or complete distribution. That doesn't mean that _nobody_ does this; it only means it's not a goal of that one project. (I'm actually not sure what of the myriad of pages you were quoting there, and I see no such text on the Indiana page, so if you could include a URL when quoting things, that'd probably help.) http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/ section What is the OpenSolaris project? third paragraph,,, Part of the problem here is the overloading of the term project. Just as Sun will cause an equally confusing overloading of OpenSolaris (RT) This seems like the OpenSolaris project is *planning* to become the same kind of train wreck that GNU/Linux already is. I see signs of I disagree. First of all, the Indiana project (which is producing that OpenSolaris distribution) has not integrated with the rest of OpenSolaris yet. They're currently just a project. They're off doing their own thing, running an interesting experiment. The jury is most definitely out on which parts of the experiment succeed, which fail, and thus what happens when it finally integrates. Nobody is forcing anyone to use those bits. It's just another unintegrated project, like Crossbow or my own RBridges project yet. Until it integrates, nothing's really carved in stone. (Even then, carved in stone is a tough thing to say for something as malleable as software.) that already. There appear to be a multitude of distributions with questionable interoperability, each having their own preferred packaging system. Indeed; that part is true, and fairly obviously _intentionally_ so. IMHO this is exactly what describes a distribution, abase OS, and number of interesting and useful packages or repository, and the distributions secret sauce, the installation tools and the packaging methodology. Is this really the case? Or did I miss a document somewhere that explains how the various distributions interrelate in such a way that if someone says they're running OpenSolaris XX, I'll know what's installed beyond just the kernel? I think that if the direction of Indiana concerns you, you should send that feedback to that project team (the address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- not to the general OpenSolaris community. I believe that all projects should be free to do what they want. No matter how outrageous it might seem to others, or how unlikely it may be to be usable, every project ought to have free reign to do what it sees fit. Where the rubber meets the road is in two places: first, there's the endorser relationship with a community. Every project needs at least one to survive on opensolaris.org, and communities can reasonably withdraw endorsement if a given project is not going where the community wants to go, or isn't solving the problems the community wants to have solved. Second, it's in integration. Most projects need to find a way into a distribution -- either by integration with an established consolidation that delivers to distributions, or by appealing to the distributors themselves. That's a second point at which we can take a step back and say, gee, is this something we really want? But until we get to that point, I think it makes sense to say that going to the Indiana project with concerns about that team's direction is the best advice. I would invite yo to participate in the upcoming Requirements gathering virtual meeting that Tim Cramer is sponsoring. sse http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/Indiana#OpenSolaris_Community_Strategy_Planning_Meeting for information. rich ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] importance of zones
CPU's in the hardware sense are not allocated to zones, but the available compute resources are.. so in you scenario if all zones including the global are running at full utilization, i.e. CPU bound, then zone a gets 80/86*100% of the CPU resources, if you stop the CPU bound tasks in zone b then it get 80/81*100% of the resources. rich Victor Feng wrote: Given the importance of zones and some other info, is there any formula to calculate the number of CPUs that system will allocate to each zone? e.g. Following system has only two zones with dynamic pool service enabled. Total number of CPU in the system is 32. # zonecfg -z zoneA info dedicated-cpu dedicated-cpu: ncpus: 4-8 importance: 80 # zonecfg -z zoneB info dedicated-cpu dedicated-cpu: ncpus: 4-8 importance: 5 zoneA has 8 CPU-intense processes running, e.g. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null, zoneB has 8 CPU-intense processes running too. Global zone has two such processes. Global zone is not configured, so its importance is 1 by default. Thanks Victor This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] importance of zones
jerry - I'm always assuming there is contention for resources, its not REAL interesting if there is no contention and in this case there is none.. thanx, for the insight... rich Jerry Jelinek wrote: Victor Feng wrote: Given the importance of zones and some other info, is there any formula to calculate the number of CPUs that system will allocate to each zone? e.g. Following system has only two zones with dynamic pool service enabled. Total number of CPU in the system is 32. # zonecfg -z zoneA info dedicated-cpu dedicated-cpu: ncpus: 4-8 importance: 80 # zonecfg -z zoneB info dedicated-cpu dedicated-cpu: ncpus: 4-8 importance: 5 zoneA has 8 CPU-intense processes running, e.g. dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null, zoneB has 8 CPU-intense processes running too. Global zone has two such processes. Global zone is not configured, so its importance is 1 by default. In this example the importance doesn't matter since you have more processors that you have allocated. That is, both zones are busy but they are limited to a maximum of 8 CPUs, so they should each eventually get assigned 8 CPUs for a total of 16, leaving 16 CPUs in the default pool for the global zone to use. Jerry ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
