Re: [osol-discuss] SXCE b86 SPARC Single Image ISO & Nero Issues
Hi Joerg, Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, cdrecord requires Cygwin and doesn't work well with UNC paths. Best Regards, Jason On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Has anyone else had an issue burning the SXCE b86 SPARC single image > > ISO to a DVD using Nero? Have tried Nero 6 and Nero 8 and both > > complain it's not a valid disc image. Have not had any issues before > > with SXCE images and Nero. Any insight is greatly appreciated. > > Why don't you just use cdrecord? cdrecord runs on any OS. > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ > > Jörg > > -- > EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin >[EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Mysql's Innodb immensely slow on ZFS
Hi Jurgen, On our Thumpers running MySQL, we limit the ARC to 4GB. On systems with less RAM we limit the ARC to 1GB. What kind of disk is backing the pools? Might be some kind of array cache flushing issues going on. Also, you might try putting your InnoDB log files on a UFS partition and see if the performance issues go away. Best Regards, Jason On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Jürgen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And another case was an attempt to use "xsltproc(1)" on a > > big xml file, this time on an amd64 x2 machine with 4GB of > > memory, using zfs, and the xsltproc process had grown to > > use > 2GB of memory. Again heavy disk trashing, and I > > didn't had the impression that the arc cache did > > shrink enough to prevent that thrashing. > > It looks like this, in top: > > load averages: 0.01, 0.02, 0.05 > 21:11:47 > 75 processes: 74 sleeping, 1 on cpu > CPU states: 99.4% idle, 0.1% user, 0.5% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap > Memory: 4031M real, 108M free, 2693M swap in use, 1310M swap free > >PID USERNAME LWP PRI NICE SIZE RES STATETIMECPU COMMAND > 7587 jk 1 600 2430M 2306M sleep0:25 0.24% xsltproc > 7588 jk 1 590 3916K 1472K cpu/00:00 0.02% top > 44 root 1 5900K0K sleep0:10 0.01% Xorg > 7613 jk 1 590 2912K 1792K sleep0:00 0.01% iostat > 15634 postgres 1 590 19M 1152K sleep0:53 0.00% postgres > 80 root 1 590 13M 1644K sleep0:07 0.00% dtgreet > 4276 daemon 2 60 -20 2756K 676K sleep3:48 0.00% nfsd > 27392 root 1 590 6300K 1680K sleep3:17 0.00% ypserv > 3307 root 1 590 7080K 2716K sleep3:13 0.00% intrd > 7137 root 1 100 -20 2716K 1364K sleep1:39 0.00% xntpd > 2876 root 5 590 3568K 1780K sleep1:21 0.00% automountd >579 daemon 1 590 3588K 1384K sleep1:20 0.00% rpcbind > 9 root 15 590 20M 1316K sleep1:20 0.00% svc.configd > 26803 root 35 590 5576K 2944K sleep0:52 0.00% nscd >305 root 7 590 3996K 1000K sleep0:42 0.00% devfsadm > > > The resident set size of xsltproc is *slowly* increasing. > > truss on the xsltproc shows no system calls. > > % truss -p 7587 > ^C > > > But there are lots of page faults: > > % truss -m all -p 7587 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F19A024 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F19B018 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F19D004 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F19E00C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1A1008 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1A3004 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1A4024 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1AC00C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1AD018 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1AE014 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1AF018 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1B3008 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1C0020 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1C101C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1CD018 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1CE010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1D400C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1DB17C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1DE020 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B9A addr = 0x0F1E1018 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1E2010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1E3004 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1E5008 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1EA010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1F1004 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1F3008 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1F6010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1F800C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1F9014 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1FA01C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F1FC010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1FD004 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F1FE00C > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F201008 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68BA8 addr = 0x0F206010 > Incurred fault #11, FLTPAGE %pc = 0xFEE68B92 addr = 0x0F20800C >
[osol-discuss] SXCE b86 SPARC Single Image ISO & Nero Issues
Hello, Has anyone else had an issue burning the SXCE b86 SPARC single image ISO to a DVD using Nero? Have tried Nero 6 and Nero 8 and both complain it's not a valid disc image. Have not had any issues before with SXCE images and Nero. Any insight is greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [indiana-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Hi Jim, > How about organic growth? Why must we go out and grab developers from > other communities. Early on we never discussed grabbing developers from > other communities. Virtually all of our planning discussions were > focused on organic growth and the business of opening our own stuff. I really was not referring to developers being brought in, but users. Particularly, folks interested for the first time in moving their servers off Linux onto Solaris. > > How has the community not gotten "out of its own way" on this? > The general bickering over the naming issue. -J ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] I'm sorry, but I just don't get it
Hey Guys, As someone who's come to OpenSolaris from outside the community, I think the decision is right on. And Ian's comment that he doesn't get it. It seems to me that community is important, but OpenSolaris has a larger identity issue vis-a-vis the non-community. If the goal of the distro is draw folks like my company into the fold, there has to be distro unequivocally associated with the OpenSolaris name. Because frankly, if you're trying to grab folks from another OS you've got a short window of opportunity to get them to try it, and confusing the heck out of them because they can't figure out which distro is the archetypical OpenSolaris distro is prolly not something in Sun's or the community's best interest. If the community can't get out if its own way on this one, I'm not sure its wrong of Sun to make a unilateral decision. In my opinion, its too important to the future of the company that owns the trademark. I share Ian's frustration in not understanding why this concept isn't universally grasped/agreed with. Doesn't mean I don't understand the arguments, just don't agree that the community should trump on this one. Best Regards, Jason On 11/2/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian, > > > All right. > > > > I don't even know where to begin. > > > > Does it matter at all that the feedback outside this community to > > the idea that we're producing a binary distribution called > > OpenSolaris has almost universally been: "Duh. What took so long?" > > > > Does it matter that the initial feedback on the Developer Preview > > has been overwhelming positive, that so many more people in the > > world are talking about OpenSolaris--that the approach is WORKING? > > > > Does it matter that we literally MOVED MOUNTAINS to get to where we > > are today.. To create this community in the first place, to free the IP, > > to reprioritize, to get the vast resources Sun dedicates to Solaris > > focused on doing their work in the open, to evangelize within the > > company the importance of continuing to open up such that those outside > > of Sun can participate in future development on an equal footing? > > > > Does it matter that we are inviting the community to participate > > in a discussion about how to enable broader use of the OpenSolaris > > brand, to build out a ecosystem of distributions that are compatible, > > to solve the Linux fragmentation problem before it even becomes > > a problem? What other company has done this? Shouldn't we be applauded > > for being willing to take this step--or is this just another > > case of Sun being held to a much different standard than everyone else? > > > > And, yes, does it matter that Sun holds a large stake in this > > community, PAYS the vast majority of people here for the privilege of > > being able to spend their days doing what they love, gets flamed > > repeatedly by many of those same people for our trouble, and in return > > thinks it reasonable to have _some_ say in how the community functions? > > Or is that a sign of evil intentions? Do we have to completely > > abdicate to "be community"? Isn't that taxation without representation? > > > > Or is all that insignificant, irrelevant? We haven't given everything, > > so therefore we've given nothing? > > > > I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Not in the least bit. > > I assume that you actually _do_ get it -- that your plea of ignorance is > rhetorical ploy and not an actual confession of limited mental capacity -- > but for the sake of argument, allow me to clarify: the issue is > nomenclature. That's it; it's not more complicated than that. As members > of our community's elected body have made exhaustively clear, there is > a consensus that a single OpenSolaris-derived distribution -- even one > emanating from Sun -- should not have exclusive use of the name > "OpenSolaris". That is, a distribution should be allowed to be derived > from OpenSolaris, but no one distribution should be allowed to simply > _be_ OpenSolaris. > > So I guess it's my turn to say that I don't get it: given that this is > such a small issue -- and one in which our elected body is so clearly > speaking with one voice -- why do you insist on persisting down what is > clearly such a divisive path? > > - Bryan > > -- > Bryan Cantrill, Sun Microsystems FishWorks. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Boise OpenSolaris Users Group
HI James, That's a very good idea. Just wanted to hit as generic an interest range as possible for a first query. Thank you for the advice. Best Regards, Jason On 10/8/07, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason J. W. Williams writes: > > My company uses a lot of OpenSolaris, and we're interested in having > > an OpenSolaris Users Group in Boise. > > Many of the folks who would be interested in talking about this idea > aren't on the rather wide-ranging opensolaris-discuss list. I suggest > contacting the Advocacy community group instead, as that's where > user's groups are discussed: > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/advocacy/ > > -- > James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 > MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 > ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Boise OpenSolaris Users Group
Hey, My company uses a lot of OpenSolari... -- Forwarded message -- From: "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 02:44:22 -0600 Subject: Boise OpenSolaris Users Group To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hey, My company uses a lot of OpenSolaris, and we're interested in having an OpenSolaris Users Group in Boise. So I'm sending out a probe into the ether to see if there are any others in the area that would be interested having an OSUG here in Boise too. The Indiana pre-release presents a cool opportunity for an initial gathering it seems to me. Please contact me on or off list if you're interested! Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
It is possible that one has a personal preference for GNU. However, it is technically impossible for GNU tools, in their current incarnation, to be superior. And if you have a whole bunch of professional engineers (me excluded this time!) sticking to, developing with, and working on those tools, you ought to reconsider why that is so. ROFL. There are no words sometimes. I'd respond to your points, but this is a religious argument not a rational one. -J > If you like > the other that's fine, but its arrogant to say "our > way or the > highway". No it's not. You came to use (Open)Solaris, then accept the System V ways and seek to understand way, don't demand that others adapt to you. If you have a problem with that, then go back to Linux and GNU, since that's what you seem to prefer. > There's room for both, and denigrating the > positive aspects > of the GNU userland is narrow-minded and fruitless. There is most certainly room for both; however, where they do the same thing, *both* are unnecessary. And I for one don't want to be using GNU where I have System V tools. If I wanted to be using GNU, I would still be a Linux system engineer, not a Solaris one. 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] Re: Re: Sun to make Solaris more Linux like
On 5/10/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We have one Linux whiner or another whining here just about every five minutes how something in Solaris is "missing" (it's not missing, you just don't know it's there and didn't bother asking!), and how Solaris is really inferior to Linux in XYZ and how it needs to catch up to Linux, and oh why oh why doesn't Solaris do ABC like Linux does and Linux is oh-so-wonderful but Solaris has this oh-it-could-be-so-great potential except blablabla... Dude, now you're whining. If we didn't care about bettering Solaris we wouldn't bitch. And you're making an assumption that the folks complaining don't know what they're talking about. Having used both SVR4 and GNU userlands extensively, GNU is my preferred. If you like the other that's fine, but its arrogant to say "our way or the highway". There's room for both, and denigrating the positive aspects of the GNU userland is narrow-minded and fruitless. -J ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: joining Sun
Hi there, Its a question of preference. Solaris is a far superior OS in the kernel etc. Userland it just isn't. Nexenta is a really nice bridge between the two. Frankly, if you need to get hot around the collar about this issue its alright. Best Regards, Jason On 4/2/07, a b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Solaris is a good OS. Unfortunately, its the last remaining SysV worth >learning. HP-UX is dead, as is IRIXmy Octane2 at home not >withstanding. Let's not make this a "the mountain has to come to >Mohammed" thing. The question is whether or not Solaris wants greater >mind share...that is the Linux mindshare...if not, don't change >anything. If so, make it easier to come over. Its a simple decision it >seems to me...not worth all the vitriole. Nice spin. Let me ask you this though: you had no problem with learning Linux, why do you have a problem with learning Solaris then? I really don't mean to sound cliche, but that's a double standard... not to mention it's plainly and simply unreasonable. Sun gave people like you everything you demanded so far -- an open source OS, a nice liberal license, tons of really usable, high-quality professional tools and software - but it's all still not enough. If what you really want is another Linux, then why settle for a "copy"? Just use the original, and don't bother with Solaris. The way you put it, "either make it look and behave like Linux or we'll ditch it", just sounds too much like blackmail. And I'm really unsure is such user base is a good user base for any operating system, including Linux himself. _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar - get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] joining Sun
Hi Alan, Seriously, many people have talked about this in the past, and there are some solutions today such as pkg-get which blastwave uses, and apt was ported with Nexenta...but I don't think it would matter as long as people got their packages and were able to have a network enabled install. I beleive we're moving in that direction, and several projects are in progress that will facilitate some of this, possibly with SysV packaging as Solaris uses today (which would require changes of course). Actually I've used Nexenta and apt seems to work very nicely. In a lot of ways Nexenta provides a nice middle ground for folks who like the GNU userland and the Solaris kernel. Also, I agree as long as network enabled install works that's really what matters. It'd be nice if the packages were put in the official paths instead of /opt/csw or /opt/sfw as on Linux systems...but my understanding is that's the hope of the /usr/gnu project (to give folks the option of which way to do it). Best Regards, Jason Most all folks would like to see an automated dependency resolving packaging system. -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: joining Sun
Solaris is a good OS. Unfortunately, its the last remaining SysV worth learning. HP-UX is dead, as is IRIXmy Octane2 at home not withstanding. Let's not make this a "the mountain has to come to Mohammed" thing. The question is whether or not Solaris wants greater mind share...that is the Linux mindshare...if not, don't change anything. If so, make it easier to come over. Its a simple decision it seems to me...not worth all the vitriole. -J On 4/2/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It gives the guys here hope that Solaris will move > faster to adopt > things like /usr/gnu, and generally adopt the > usability improvements > Linux has had. While there are pockets of folks that > seem to admit the > usability gap between Linux and Solaris > toolchains...there seem to be > a lot of folks that take it personally and gum up > moving forward in > this regard. I believe we have started off "on the wrong foot" to begin with. It seems to me that every time we discuss "Linux vs. Solaris" or "Solaris vs. Linux usability", the Linux/GNU proponents start with the assumption that for some reason or another, Solaris must "close the gap" by behaving as close to Linux as possible. But Solaris is not Linux. Solaris will never be Linux. Solaris is a System V UNIX, and those coming to Solaris should learn Solaris the way Solaris is, not expect Solaris to imitate and turn into Linux. Accept Solaris for what Solaris is, if you truly want to use it and learn it, then also learn it the way Solaris is. Most if not all "GNU/Linux ways" have their equivalents -- whether in Solaris or in System V. And System V is a far bigger area that covers a lot more systems and standards than all the Linux distros put together -- not in the numbers shipped, but in the issues covered. Please don't expect Solaris to turn into Linux. Give Solaris a chance by learning how things are done in a standard way -- that is, the System V standard. You can use that knowledge on other systems then as well, for example, on HP-UX and IRIX. What you learned on Linux is almost unusable on anything else. I'd go so far as to compare it to Windows knowledge -- Windows knowledge is only good on Windows, and on nothing else. As a reminder: "GNU is Not UNIX". 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] joining Sun
Hi Joerg, No need to get bristled about it. Feel is one of the big reasons folks don't move off Linux... -J On 3/31/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Alan, > > A packaging system like apt is exactly what I'd like. Frankly, a > packaging system that blends the binary delivery benefits of apt plus > the source delivery benefits of "emerge" would be fantastic. The > network install is primarily what we're missing...that and the pkg > utilities just feel a little clunky in the 21st century. Sorry for the Feelings from the gut do not help in a discussion. If you like to discuss this, please use technically based arguments. BTW: has "pkgadd" already been enhanced to include a tsort(1) like feature to automatically install a list of packages in the right order? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: joining Sun
Hi Alan, > its very nice, to see u here, I am also new to solaris, now I am assured to > get a stable version of solaris, under your supervision. This has not been our experience with Solaris. And we run Gentoo and OpenSolaris side-by-side to run our service. Out of curiousity, what gives you the feeling of assurance knowing that Ian is at Sun, that you didn't have before you knew he was here? It gives the guys here hope that Solaris will move faster to adopt things like /usr/gnu, and generally adopt the usability improvements Linux has had. While there are pockets of folks that seem to admit the usability gap between Linux and Solaris toolchains...there seem to be a lot of folks that take it personally and gum up moving forward in this regard. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not advocating dropping the old way of doing things entirely. That's obviously required for reasons of backwards compatibility and personal preference. Just would be nice to have the choice. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] joining Sun
Hi Alan, A packaging system like apt is exactly what I'd like. Frankly, a packaging system that blends the binary delivery benefits of apt plus the source delivery benefits of "emerge" would be fantastic. The network install is primarily what we're missing...that and the pkg utilities just feel a little clunky in the 21st century. Sorry for the extremely delayed response...been buried. Best Regards, Jason On 3/19/07, Alan DuBoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Monday 19 March 2007 05:13 pm, David Lloyd wrote: > Joe, > > >> Indeed, apt-get for Solaris would be quite useful :P > > > > Isn't that Nexenta? Had to say it. > > I don't want the Ubuntu Userland on an OpenSolaris code base. I'd prefer > a distribution as close to Sun's release of Sun Solaris (tm) that I can > get but without Sun Solaris', errrm, wonderful? package management. Why do you care about the packaging system, if it works? IOW, do you really care about what type of package is used if packaging in Solaris worked as it should, with dependencies resolving properly? I don't think you really care about .deb packages either, what I *think* you're saying is "give me a packaging system that works like apt does!", if I understand you correctly. I'm in agreement with you, if that is what you meant, and packaging is being looked at inside (Open)Solaris Engineering. I will be right in line behind you for a packaging system that works with proper dependency resolution, as apt does with Debian. I want to be able to install over the net also as apt has done for the past number of years. Between the Caiman project and the Packaging, we'll be much closer if not there in the future. Check out the Installation and Packaging Community, if you haven't yet. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/install/ -- Alan DuBoff - Solaris x86 Engineering - IHV/OEM Group Advocate of insourcing at Sun - hire people that care about our company! ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Project Proposal: Next Generation Web Stack
Hey there, We run a few hundred millions rows of data in multiple MySQL clusters and have not had the same issue...having done it many times a week. Sounds like operator error. -J On 3/19/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, the MySQL is a definite requirement. Calling > MySQL a shoddy > product is pretty nasty and wrong-headed comment. Take that however you please, but I stand behind what I wrote. Any product that is incapable of doing a cold DB dump and reimport back into another instance of the product (same revision) is shoddy, and to make matters worse, this happened while following the MySQL AB's documentation. Anything like that does not deserve to be called production quality, let alone have applications that might be mission critical depend on it. I wrote it, you read it here from me, and I stand behind it any day of the week. Message was edited by: ux-admin 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] Ldap authentication problem
Hi Moises, Are you using the PAM LDAP that came with Solaris? If so, are you trying to do authentication by using an anonymous search, followed by a self-credentialed bind? -J On 3/16/07, Moises Castellanos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi! I have a problem using ldap authentication with opensolaris (I try Nextenta alpha release 6 and Solaris Express ). I'm using an openldap in a linux box and use: $ ldapclient init "IP of my server" This command works perfect but the issue is that anyone can login in the computer with any account with ssh. I try changing the configuration of ssh and pam, and anything works. When I try to login from the dtlogin and it says this account dont't have password and ask me if I wanna to set one. I also have several computers runing Solaris 10 and 9, and the authentication on this machines are working without whis problem. Can you give me any help about this ?? is a bug or a missconfiguration ?? Regards. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal: Next Generation Web Stack
+1 from Me. Would be nice to see a Python-based framework included (Django perhaps). Also, the MySQL is a definite requirement. Calling MySQL a shoddy product is pretty nasty and wrong-headed comment. I've got my own gripes about Postgres, but lets just say I'd like to see both included, and folks can use what works best (most reliably) for them. -J On 3/16/07, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Project Proposal: Next Generation Web Stack > > Summary > > We would like to create an OpenSolaris project to > assume and enhance > the community and work originally created in Sun's > CoolStack project > as part of the CoolTools project. This project will > assume all of > the CoolStack components, including Apache HTTP > Server, MySQL > Database Server, Perl, PHP, Ruby, Rails, Squid and > others. The > existing CoolStack forums will be retired and > replaced with > discussions at OpenSolaris.org. +1 from me, just one suggestion: ditch the MySQL DB as fast as possible and replace it with PostgreSQL. MySQL DB is an extremely shoddy product, besides, PostgreSQL is much easier to deploy and use. 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] joining Sun
Hi Ian, That's terrific! <3rd grade chanting>Packing's gonna get fixed...packaging's gonna get fixed...! All kidding aside, you being on OpenSolaris is spectacular! Damn near causing a house party where I works. Hope you have fun at it. Best Regards Jason On 3/19/07, Ian Murdock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all, It's being announced today that I'm joining Sun as chief operating platforms officer, which basically means I'll be in charge of Sun's operating system strategy, spanning Solaris and Linux. I just posted the announcement on my blog (http://ianmurdock.com/2007/03/19/joining-sun/), and it'll likely be making the rounds soon. Just wanted to make sure you heard the news directly from me and to introduce myself. First things first: I'm a long time Linux user, developer, and advocate. I founded Debian in 1993, co-founded a Linux distribution company called Progeny in 1999, and most recently served as CTO of the new Linux Foundation, where I was (and still am) chair of the LSB, the Linux platform interoperability standard. I'm also a long time Sun fan. As for what I'll be doing: While I'm coming in with some fairly formed opinions about what Sun/Solaris/OpenSolaris ought to do (peruse my blog a bit to learn more), I'm also a big believer in listening before talking, and I have a lot of listening to do in the weeks to come. So, please, feel free to drop me a line if you have anything to tell me. And, please, be gentle while I get settled. :-) Gotta get on a call in a few minutes. In the meantime, I just wanted to say hello, and to make sure you heard the news directly from me. Later, -ian -- Ian Murdock http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Project Proposal: Fault Management Event Registry
+1 Muy bueno. -J On 2/27/07, cindi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Getting rid of CD images for future SX:CE deliveries
Hi Guys, It would be nice to have single solid DVD ISO download as an option. Though I know the parts need to be retained for folks who want the DVD ISO but have bad connections. -J On 2/23/07, john g4lt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What's the functional difference to the user between getting a dvd image that's split into 5 parts and 5 iso images first of all? if the dvd image is going to be split anyways, why not make each image able to be burnt independently? With the present dvd image split up into 5 files, I see no gain in dropping the CD images and only headaches if one part fails the download. headaches that you don't have if you download each cd and burn it independently. with cd images, you can always have the install running while you refetch/burn the missing image. this would be different if there was a unified dvd image that didn't need to be concatenated. short of that, dropping the cd images is just not supportable, because now the user doesn't have the option to have one download per tangible piece of install media. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Getting rid of CD images for future SX:CE deliveries
Hi Alan, We've removed all of our v20z's so its not an issue for us...but if we still had them it would be painful in extreme circumstances. The ILOM and ELOM both support remote ISO mounting, and the basic BMC on the v20z doesn't. So in an emergency you're stuck with CDs. Best Regards, Jason On 2/23/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote: > On 2/23/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >> >> > Would you have a problem with DVD-only images for SX:CE? Do you have >> > systems you use for OpenSolaris that don't have DVD drives and that >> > you can't netinstall from another system or Live Upgrade from a mounted >> > image? >> >> Speaking personally, no I have no issues with this. >> >> -- > That would probably be a show stopper in many third world countries, > but then again, as long as the developer edition has cd images, there > shouldn't be a problem. Getting rid of them for Nevada will affect the Developer Edition as well. -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering February 2007 Selection: LSARC Chair of the Month Club ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /usr/gnu project?
> I would think that build recipes > are far more useful. Be they in any machine-readable format. Definitely. And in the same vein they are more conducive to the "appliance foundary" concept too -- e.g. the kind of thing that Jason Williams said (earlier in this thread) that his company needs. Yes, please. :-) Our business provides services based on our own software. Our deployment atm is based around the concept of Gentoo ebuilds. Moving them to .spec files (while not seemingly an exact analog for ebuilds) is a very attractive on OpenSolaris. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /usr/gnu project?
Hi Joerg, As corrected earlier, it was a typo. Meant glib2. I believe I did link to glib though. -J On 2/23/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > la Linux distros (http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=glib). In > this case, would be nice if SUNWgtk depended on SUNWglibc2 instead of > just munging the libraries in. Do you really propose to use a C-library that is not fully functional for Solaris? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /usr/gnu project?
Hi Alan, I do apologize for the typo. I do mean glib. It is part of the GTK project, but its used by quite a few things that don't need GTK. On Solaris eject is a key example. -J On 2/23/07, Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > Hi Laszlo, > >> A bit OT, but it's glib 2.0, and it really is part of the GNOME >> project. The reason why you need it for HAL is because HAL uses >> dbus (both of them are freedesktop.org projects) and dbus uses >> glib. > > I guess I brought it up as an example of what we run into as a > systemic packaging issue. That libraries get munged in (like glibc-2.0 > with GTK) glibc, aka the GNU libc, is a very different beast than glib. (glibc doesn't even work on Solaris for starters, but you keep saying it so you sound confused.) glib is developed by the gtk project, so it's not munging it in, it's delivering it where it naturally belongs. See http://www.gtk.org/ -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /usr/gnu project?
Hi Laszlo, A bit OT, but it's glib 2.0, and it really is part of the GNOME project. The reason why you need it for HAL is because HAL uses dbus (both of them are freedesktop.org projects) and dbus uses glib. I guess I brought it up as an example of what we run into as a systemic packaging issue. That libraries get munged in (like glibc-2.0 with GTK) with things they're a dependency of. As part of the process of moving to /usr/gnu to improve GNU usability on Solaris, it would be really nice to see more granular packaging of GNU userland/libraries a la Linux distros (http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=glib). In this case, would be nice if SUNWgtk depended on SUNWglibc2 instead of just munging the libraries in. Anywho, thanks for taking the time reply. And thank you VERY much for y'all pushing the /usr/gnu project forward. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /usr/gnu project?
It's not a workload issue. We can handle more packages (as long as our nightly build completes in 24 hours ;) But it doesn't seem logical. Currently there is no rule to determine where a package belongs. It's a matter of who integrated it initially. Ideally, desktop should be desktop, X should be X, ON should be OS and networking. There is also no reason why all the GNU tools should follow the GNOME schedule, which JDS currently does. This is actually a big beef at my company. We're replacing Gentoo on our application nodes with OpenSolaris for a variety of reasons. We had a rude awakening when we did not install most of the Gnome packages, and were missing glibc 2.0 as a result...and a couple other critical packages. Interestingly, eject and the hal would not work without glibc 2.0. Its pretty ridiculous to expect folks to install the X/Gnome packages on a server. Particularly, from a security point-of-view. So we second the notion that GNU tools should NOT be packaged in with Gnome, but should be separate. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Re: /usr/gnu project?
Hi Laca, That's terrific that it made it out of PSARC. This would make it a lot easier to move a lot of our infrastructure off Gentoo and onto OpenSolaris. Building a community/repository around spec files rocks too! Anything that brings the concept of ebuilds closer to being possible on OpenSolaris is terrific. Best Regards, Jason ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
