Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool upgrade wrecked GRUB

2008-08-04 Thread sanjay nadkarni (Laptop)
Luca Morettoni reported a similar behavior (i.e. a perfectly running 
system that drops into grub on reboot) on indiana-discuss.  I wonder if 
the issue is that installgrub is updating the MBR on one disk.  If the 
second disk does not have an updated grub menu, that would explain what 
you are seeing.  If this indeed is the issue, then what is puzzling is 
why did the BIOS change the boot order ?  Was the BIOS updated and the 
values got reset to some default values ?

Lori Alt wrote:
> Seymour Krebs wrote:
>   
>> Machine is running x86 snv_94 after recent upgrade from opensolaris 2008.05. 
>>  ZFS and zpool reported no troubles except suggesting upgrade for from 
>> ver.10 to ver.11. seemed like a good idea at the time.  system up for 
>> several days after that point then took down for some unrelated maintenance.
>>
>> now will not boot the opensol, drops to grub prompt, no menus.
>>
>> zfs was mirrored on two disks c6d0s0 and c7d0.  I never noted the GRUB 
>> commands for booting  and not really familiar with the nomenclature.  at 
>> this point I am hoping that a burn of SXCE snv_94 will give me access to the 
>> zfs pools so I can try "update-grub" but at this point it will be about 9 
>> hours to download the .iso and I kinda need to work on data residing in that 
>> system
>>
>>   
>> 
> I'll try to help, but I'm confused by a few things.  First, when
> you say that you upgraded from OpenSolaris 2008.05 to snv_94,
> what do you mean?  Because I'm not sure how one "upgrades"
> an IPS-based release to the older SVR4 packages-based
> release type. 
In the IPS world, one upgrades using the command pkg image-update.  pkg 
commands link with beadm libraries. rpool is snapshotted, then cloned.  
It is mounted on a temporary mountpoint and then the contents are 
upgraded.  Very similar to live upgrade for zfs.


-Sanjay

>  Do you mean that you did an initial install
> using snv_94?  If so, did you select a zfs root or a ufs root?
> At what point were you presented with the suggestion
> to upgrade the pool from ver.10 to ver.11? 
>
> Also, you write that  you are doing a burn of SXCE snv_94,
> but how did you do the "upgrade" (or whatever) to snv_94
> in the first place without a snv_94 install medium? 
>
> Lori
>   
>> any suggestions 
>>
>> thanks, 
>> sgk
>>  
>>  
>> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>> ___
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>   
>> 
>
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>   

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] Booting from a USB HD

2008-08-01 Thread sanjay nadkarni (Laptop)
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> I installed OS 2008.05 onto a USB HD (WD Passport), and was able to boot from 
> it (knock on wood!).
>
> However, when plugged into a different machine, I then am unable to boot from 
> it.
>
> Is there any permission issue that I must address on this ZFS HD before I can 
> boot from it?
>   
Could you provide a bit more information as to where it fails ? Does the 
new system discover it ? Do you see the grub menu ? 

-Sanjay

>  
>  
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>   

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss


Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap & dump on ZFS volume

2008-07-02 Thread sanjay nadkarni (Laptop)
Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Magda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the
>> installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris
>> is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes?
>> Is there any reason why they should be separate?
>> 
>
> Aside from what Kyle just said...
>
> If they are separate you can avoid doing savecore if you are never
> going to read it.  For most people, my guess is that savecore just
> means that they cause a bunch of thrashing during boot (swap/dump is
> typically on same spindles as /var/crashh), waste some space in
> /var/crash, and never look at the crash dump.  If you come across a
> time where you actually do want to look at it, you can manually run
> savecore at some time in the future.
>
> Also, last time I looked (and I've not seen anything to suggest it is
> fixed) proper dependencies do not exist to prevent paging activity
> after boot from trashing the crash dump in a shared swap+dump device -
> even when savecore is enabled.  It is only by luck that you get
> anything out of it.  Arguably this should be fixed by proper SMF
> dependencies.
>   
Really ? Back when I looked at it, dumps were written to the back end of 
the swap device.  This would prevent paging from writing on top of a 
valid dump.  Furthermore  when the system is  coming up, savecore was 
run very early to grab core so that paging would not trash the core. 


-Sanjay

> --
> Mike Gerdts
> http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
> ___
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
>   

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss