Re: [zones-discuss] [smf-discuss] Possible solution to automated installation of single user patches
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 07:13:56PM +0200, Renaud Manus wrote: Sure :-) Both Sun Cluster and AVS introduce new services. Some of them (eg. global-devices system/nws_scm) are dependent on milestone/single-user and add filesystem/local as their dependent. If we were to move filesystem/local into ms/single-user, it would create a dependency loop between those services and SMF doesn't allow it. eg. fs/local - ms/single-user - system/nws_scm - fs/local Perhaps we need to split fs/local? ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] [smf-discuss] Possible solution to automated installation of single user patches
Narendra Kumar S.S wrote: Is there any particular reason, why you are not proposing to move filesystem/local to single-user milestone. That was option #1 in my list. However, there were those who objected to changing the definition of single-user mode in this way. In addition, there are these late-breaking issues with Sun Cluster et al. That looks very simple fix Yes. and will solve all the problems. No. It would address the particular breakage that we're seeing today, but would not address the systemic problem that there is no agreement on when and how these services should be run. Re-read the proposal. It describes the issues and constraints. I believe that today (even without this most recent patchadd issue) there are a number of cases where we are avoid problems only because we've been lucky, and because we've worked around the problems in a few cases. ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] [smf-discuss] Possible solution to automated installation of single user patches
After more investigation, moving filesystem/local to single-user milestone is not an option when Sun Cluster or Sun Storagetek AVS comes into play. -- Renaud Narendra Kumar S.S wrote: Jordan, Is there any particular reason, why you are not proposing to move filesystem/local to single-user milestone. That looks very simple fix and will solve all the problems. Regards, Narendra On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Jordan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordan Brown wrote: Proposal 2: - Make the new patching service depend on system/filesystem/local. - Modify patchadd to temporarily enable system/filesystem/local before patching, and disable it afterward, *if* it is offline. Note that when the patching service runs, system/filesystem/local will be online and so patchadd will not need to manipulate it. I added part of this late and it's a little misleading. It suggests that patchadd wouldn't need to manipulate s/f/l, and that's not quite right. *When invoked from the patch service*, patchadd wouldn't need to manipulate s/f/l. When invoked interactively (from milestone/single-user), in this scenario patchadd would still have to enable s/f/l. ___ smf-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Warm Regards, Narendra Visit my blogs at: http://ssnarendrakumar.blogspot.com/ ___ ___ __ _ / __/ / __/ / | / / _\ \ _ \ \ / /| |/ / \___/ \___/ /_/ |__/ ___ smf-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] [smf-discuss] Possible solution to automated installation of single user patches
Sure :-) Both Sun Cluster and AVS introduce new services. Some of them (eg. global-devices system/nws_scm) are dependent on milestone/single-user and add filesystem/local as their dependent. If we were to move filesystem/local into ms/single-user, it would create a dependency loop between those services and SMF doesn't allow it. eg. fs/local - ms/single-user - system/nws_scm - fs/local Oups! -- Renaud Narendra Kumar S.S wrote: Renaud, Can you please elaborate on this? Regards, Narendra On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Renaud Manus [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After more investigation, moving filesystem/local to single-user milestone is not an option when Sun Cluster or Sun Storagetek AVS comes into play. -- Renaud Narendra Kumar S.S wrote: Jordan, Is there any particular reason, why you are not proposing to move filesystem/local to single-user milestone. That looks very simple fix and will solve all the problems. Regards, Narendra On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Jordan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordan Brown wrote: Proposal 2: - Make the new patching service depend on system/filesystem/local. - Modify patchadd to temporarily enable system/filesystem/local before patching, and disable it afterward, *if* it is offline. Note that when the patching service runs, system/filesystem/local will be online and so patchadd will not need to manipulate it. I added part of this late and it's a little misleading. It suggests that patchadd wouldn't need to manipulate s/f/l, and that's not quite right. *When invoked from the patch service*, patchadd wouldn't need to manipulate s/f/l. When invoked interactively (from milestone/single-user), in this scenario patchadd would still have to enable s/f/l. ___ smf-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Warm Regards, Narendra Visit my blogs at: http://ssnarendrakumar.blogspot.com/ ___ ___ __ _ / __/ / __/ / | / / _\ \ _ \ \ / /| |/ / \___/ \___/ /_/ |__/ ___ smf-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Warm Regards, Narendra Visit my blogs at: http://ssnarendrakumar.blogspot.com/ ___ ___ __ _ / __/ / __/ / | / / _\ \ _ \ \ / /| |/ / \___/ \___/ /_/ |__/ ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
