Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
casper@sun.com wrote: I don't yet know or understand why the 32-bit case could not be fixed, but the 64-bit case could be; I suspect kernel data structure types are to blame? And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... Depends on the OS and computer. I know a certain laptop computer manufacturer that uses EFI for their OS, disks, etc. without issue... If you mean Apple, remember that they needed to update the BIOS in order to boot other operating systems. Right; but the point is that OS support is the primary barrier where the hardware supports it. The question is whether increasing disk sizes and Window 7's EFI support will push vendors to finally use EFI, along with the fact that it uses Windows 7 apparently uses a GPT partition scheme by default? Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
Shawn wrote: > Jürgen Keil wrote: > >> In short, this is a limitation of the VTOC format Solaris > >> uses for disk labelling. > > > > This should have been fixed quite a few builds ago (b99+). > > I was respond to the 32-bit case, which as you noted, remains unfixed. > > I don't yet know or understand why the 32-bit case could not be fixed, > but the 64-bit case could be; I suspect kernel data structure types are > to blame? Yes, daddr_t is defined as a signed long in the 32-bit kernel. So 2^31-1 is the maximum disk block address that can be used in the 32-bit kernel. There already is a lldaddr_t 64-bit type, but I suspect there are too may parts in the kernel that still use daddr_t. And redefining daddr_t as a 64-bit type won't work because it breaks binary compatibility. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>I don't yet know or understand why the 32-bit case could not be fixed, >but the 64-bit case could be; I suspect kernel data structure types are >to blame? >> And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... > >Depends on the OS and computer. I know a certain laptop computer >manufacturer that uses EFI for their OS, disks, etc. without issue... If you mean Apple, remember that they needed to update the BIOS in order to boot other operating systems. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
Jürgen Keil wrote: In short, this is a limitation of the VTOC format Solaris uses for disk labelling. This should have been fixed quite a few builds ago (b99+). I was respond to the 32-bit case, which as you noted, remains unfixed. I don't yet know or understand why the 32-bit case could not be fixed, but the 64-bit case could be; I suspect kernel data structure types are to blame? Extended VTOC should support disks sizes in the range 1TB ... 2TB. So that a 64-bit Solaris can boot from a SMI labeled 1.5TB disk (<2TB)... ... When using EFI, you shouldn't see this issue with the right driver support if I understand correctly. EFI label won't help when the 32-bit disk driver refuses to attach to such a big disk. Right, which I mentioned earlier. And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... Depends on the OS and computer. I know a certain laptop computer manufacturer that uses EFI for their OS, disks, etc. without issue... Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... It is difficult enough to find a BIOS which doesn't croak when one of the non-boot disks has an EFI label. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>> If its a matter of upgrading, why not just pick up a 64-bit CPU? They >> can be had for around $60 US dollars (assuming you use AMD, a dual >> core 64-bit X2 is in that range easily) > >This system is a hunt for a low power, all-in-one home, server, it >looked like it was could become a 3GB system using less than 35W, >ideling around 27W. >But via should be comming out with board based on their 64bit 'Nano' cpu. There are several boards around there (using Via Nano and there's also the Intel Atom board though it can't use more than 2GB of memory and still uses around 40Watt) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:57 AM, wrote: >>You are invited to work on it. >>The src is open. > > Indeed, but the max you can gain is the ability to use 2TB disks and > not more. > > Casper Yep. Afterwards we either need to find a way how to boot legacy BIOS based systems from EFI labeled disks, or a way must be found how to partition disks into 2 or more VTOC <= 2TB based "Hyperpartitions", which by themselves contain the classical slices. Whatever Sun will decide, there will be a trivial workaround. Not the end of the ages. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM, roland wrote: >>>Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research >>>about the VTOC problematic behind it. >> >> thanks. i read about the vtoc problem, but i believe that "there is= > some way" to work around this or to solve it somehow. >> >> not easy ,sure - but i think it`s not ok to say "this is impossible= > =A0with 32bit solaris kernel" and will never be done. > > >You are invited to work on it. >The src is open. Indeed, but the max you can gain is the ability to use 2TB disks and not more. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Jürgen Keil wrote: >> In short, this is a limitation of the VTOC format Solaris >> uses for disk labelling. > > This should have been fixed quite a few builds ago (b99+). > Extended VTOC should support disks sizes in the > range 1TB ... 2TB. So that a 64-bit Solaris can boot from > a SMI labeled 1.5TB disk (<2TB)... > > >> When using EFI, you shouldn't see this issue with the right >> driver support if I understand correctly. > > EFI label won't help when the 32-bit disk driver refuses to > attach to such a big disk. > > And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... Half of that stuff was written a day ago. The other half is interesting and appreciated. It is always promising when Mr. Keil starts solving something:) ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
> In short, this is a limitation of the VTOC format Solaris > uses for disk labelling. This should have been fixed quite a few builds ago (b99+). Extended VTOC should support disks sizes in the range 1TB ... 2TB. So that a 64-bit Solaris can boot from a SMI labeled 1.5TB disk (<2TB)... > When using EFI, you shouldn't see this issue with the right > driver support if I understand correctly. EFI label won't help when the 32-bit disk driver refuses to attach to such a big disk. And booting from EFI labeled disks is another problem... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
> If its a matter of upgrading, why not just pick up a 64-bit CPU? They > can be had for around $60 US dollars (assuming you use AMD, a dual > core 64-bit X2 is in that range easily) This system is a hunt for a low power, all-in-one home, server, it looked like it was could become a 3GB system using less than 35W, ideling around 27W. But via should be comming out with board based on their 64bit 'Nano' cpu. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:32 AM, roland wrote: > so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the need > of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle that ? > > if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s > mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > opensolaris-discuss mailing list > opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org > I'm surprised you found a 32-bit system even capable of using 1TB drives, lots of older disk controller have issues with greater than 1TB even, setting aside 32-bit kernel limitations. If its a matter of upgrading, why not just pick up a 64-bit CPU? They can be had for around $60 US dollars (assuming you use AMD, a dual core 64-bit X2 is in that range easily) -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
roland wrote: so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the need of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle that ? if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. In short, this is a limitation of the VTOC format Solaris uses for disk labelling. When using EFI, you shouldn't see this issue with the right driver support if I understand correctly. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
> I'm unable to get my SNV 117 to see a 1,5 TB SATA drive I just got.
...
> I've tried adding the 1,5TB as the secondary drive, and tried both
> 'reboot -- -r' and 'devfsadm' but the drive wasn't listed by 'format'.
> I tried booting from the SNV 117 x86 DVD, to test installing on the
> drive, the install app complained about 'no drive'.
Is the drive listed in "iostat -En" output?
One thing that could be confusing is that the 32-bit
cmdk driver silently rejects disks > 1TB [1], while the
sd driver (USB, S-ATA HDD on S-ATA framework, ...)
at least gives an explanation on the console what
is going on [2].
[1]
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/dktp/disk/cmdk.c#389
389 #ifdef _ILP32
390 {
391 struct tgdk_geom phyg;
392 (void) dadk_getphygeom(DKTP_DATA, &phyg);
393 if ((phyg.g_cap - 1) > DK_MAX_BLOCKS) {
394 (void) dadk_close(DKTP_DATA);
395 goto fail2;
396 }
397 }
398 #endif
[2]
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/sd.c#7790
7790 if (capacity > DK_MAX_BLOCKS) {
7791 #ifdef _LP64
7792 if ((capacity + 1) >
7793 SD_GROUP1_MAX_ADDRESS) {
7794 /*
7795 * Enable descriptor
format
7796 * sense data so that
we can
7797 * get 64 bit sense data
7798 * fields.
7799 */
7800
sd_enable_descr_sense(ssc);
7801 }
7802 #else
7803 /* 32-bit kernels can't handle
this */
7804 scsi_log(SD_DEVINFO(un),
7805 sd_label, CE_WARN,
7806 "disk has %llu blocks,
which "
7807 "is too large for a 32-bit "
7808 "kernel", capacity);
7809
7810 #if defined(__i386) || defined(__amd64)
7811 /*
7812 * 1TB disk was treated as (1T
- 512)B
7813 * in the past, so that it
might have
7814 * valid VTOC and solaris
partitions,
7815 * we have to allow it to
continue to
7816 * work.
7817 */
7818 if (capacity -1 > DK_MAX_BLOCKS)
7819 #endif
7820 goto spinup_failed;
7821 #endif
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM, roland wrote: >>Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research >>about the VTOC problematic behind it. > > thanks. i read about the vtoc problem, but i believe that "there is some way" > to work around this or to solve it somehow. > > not easy ,sure - but i think it`s not ok to say "this is impossible with > 32bit solaris kernel" and will never be done. You are invited to work on it. The src is open. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research >about the VTOC problematic behind it. thanks. i read about the vtoc problem, but i believe that "there is some way" to work around this or to solve it somehow. not easy ,sure - but i think it`s not ok to say "this is impossible with 32bit solaris kernel" and will never be done. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Martin Bochnig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Martin Bochnig wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, roland wrote: >>> so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the >>> need of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle >>> that ? >>> >>> if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s >>> mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. >> >> >> >> Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research >> about the VTOC problematic behind it. >> >> Sun did and does have this good will in this case. >> In the evening I look up a few links for you. >> Or find them your self, if you are not patient enough. >> >> >> Cheers, >> Мартин Бохниг > > > p.s : Did you try "format -e" and then chose EFI? > In this scenario you must EFI-label the whole disk (p0), rather than > just a VTOC slice (henn and egg). > > I didn't use a 32bit cpu since 2004. > Time to move on. > Have several bigger SATA_2 disks connected via USB2.0 (Because eSata > was unreliable at this time). > > Note: EFI is not yet bootable on most systems. > But for 2nd-ary storage it fits well. > And to avoid confusion: You do not need EFI to make full use of disks with a capacity of up to 2TB. As long as you run a 64bit kernel at least. I'm not sure about the situation under a 32bit kernel, because why should I reboot my Laptop (-server, in stationary non-mobile 24x7x365 use) in order to test it? I only mentioned EFI because I have no clue how the situation looks like under 32bit kernels. I have 2 pairs of 1.5TB disks connected without problems. I use b114 and VTOC based ZFS on the one mirror and EFI (p0) based ZFS on the other. Works smoothly. I use them in external dual-drive enclosures with active cooling. Without using the enclosure-integrated chipset (just have them recognized as normal USB2 disks, ZFS can do the rest better for me). If you demand modern features, then you should not run it on historic hardware. At least you shouldn't complain in such a manner, if maybe not all (yet still most) features are supported on your legacy stuff. Come on: Who is still talking about 32bit kernels nowadays? Next you demand revival of sun4m support? ;) Caspar is right: The 2TB limit is a real hard headache for VTOC. That's the real question. Martin ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>>The 32-bit Solaris kernel does not support disks > 1TB >which is a major annoyance. > >let 1 or 2 years go by, and disks >1TB will be standard. And so will be 64 bit. The current market seems to offer disks from 160GB to 2TB; it will be some time before you cannot buy a disk <= 1TB. I'm a bit more worried about disks over 2TB, Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Martin Bochnig wrote: > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, roland wrote: >> so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the >> need of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle that >> ? >> >> if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s >> mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. > > > > Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research > about the VTOC problematic behind it. > > Sun did and does have this good will in this case. > In the evening I look up a few links for you. > Or find them your self, if you are not patient enough. > > > Cheers, > Мартин Бохниг p.s : Did you try "format -e" and then chose EFI? In this scenario you must EFI-label the whole disk (p0), rather than just a VTOC slice (henn and egg). I didn't use a 32bit cpu since 2004. Time to move on. Have several bigger SATA_2 disks connected via USB2.0 (Because eSata was unreliable at this time). Note: EFI is not yet bootable on most systems. But for 2nd-ary storage it fits well. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:32 AM, roland wrote: > so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the need > of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle that ? > > if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s > mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. Before complaining and trashing against the wall, do some research about the VTOC problematic behind it. Sun did and does have this good will in this case. In the evening I look up a few links for you. Or find them your self, if you are not patient enough. Cheers, Мартин Бохниг ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
so, we need to trash a working system and replace it just because of the need of adding bigger disks and because inability of software to handle that ? if other 32bit operating systems can handle those without problems, it`s mostly a matter of "good will" to change 32bit solaris apropriately. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
roland wrote: The 32-bit Solaris kernel does not support disks > 1TB which is a major annoyance. let 1 or 2 years go by, and disks >1TB will be standard. As will 64 bit systems! -- Ian. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
>The 32-bit Solaris kernel does not support disks > 1TB which is a major annoyance. let 1 or 2 years go by, and disks >1TB will be standard. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
> I'm unable to get my SNV 117 to see a 1,5 TB SATA drive I just got. > ... > Solaris: SNV 116/117 x86 > > Mother board: VIA CN 1000 What cpu? Is that a 32-bit cpu? The 32-bit Solaris kernel does not support disks > 1TB -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Any idea why Solaris snv 117 x86 wont see a 1, 5 TB SATA drive
Hi I'm unable to get my SNV 117 to see a 1,5 TB SATA drive I just got. Ubuntu 9.04 install fine on the drive. Window XP SP2 also installs fine on the drive. Solaris: SNV 116/117 x86 Mother board: VIA CN 1000 Ram: 1GB BIOS: 1.12 (Latest on the VIA site.) HDD: Western Digital 1,5 TB SATA. The SNV 116 x86 is running on a 500 GB drive. I've tried adding the 1,5TB as the secondary drive, and tried both 'reboot -- -r' and 'devfsadm' but the drive wasn't listed by 'format'. I tried booting from the SNV 117 x86 DVD, to test installing on the drive, the install app complained about 'no drive'. The odd thing is that Both Ubuntu 9.04 and Windows XP install without any problems in the drive. Am I missing something? Any hint is appreciated. Henry ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
