Paul Floyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I've recently ported an ext2fs driver to Solaris
10. See http://paulf.free.fr/software.html
Does it support mmap()?
No idea. If this is supported by the functions that correspond to VOPNAME_MAP,
VOPNAME_ADDMAP and VOPNAME_DELMAP, then I guess
Hello Robert,
Monday, July 25, 2005, 8:00:59 PM, you wrote:
RM Hello opensolaris-discuss,
RM I tried to install snv_b18 (and 17 - the same result) on Dell
RM Inspiron 8200 - I get system panic at the very beginning of booting.
RM S10 03/05 works out of the box. I belive that initial SX
Hi Bill,
I can be your contact for questions about documentation collections.
In the past, we had separate sites for software (docs.sun.com) and
hardware (www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/hardware/docs/) technical
documentation. The software doc site that you mention below contains
docs that
I wasn't discussing how good Redhat or Suse's support is - Even Sun support has
sucked upon me - it all depends on who is handling your case.
Can you detail which apps broke upon you recently and since you claim to be
knowing more than RH support does, do you know why they were broken? I mean
On 10/11/05, S Destika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wasn't discussing how good Redhat or Suse's support is - Even Sun
support has sucked upon me - it all depends on who is handling your
case.
I can't say Sun ever made stuff up when they couldn't help me. They
also publish Bug IDs that are fixed
By the way, the Gmane newsgroup site carries opensolaris-discuss.
See: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris.general
There are a few others too:
http://dir.gmane.org/index.php?prefix=gmane.os.solaris.opensolaris
This might not be satisfactory to Usenet purists because
Gmane
I've found Solaris and Redhat have very little to do with the
actual performance, most of it seems to be compiler dependent
You don't seem to have dealt with Java any time, have you? Compiler dependent,
huh? That would be true for scientific applications running mostly in user
space but if you
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 10:52 am, David Schanen wrote:
Well, it wasn't my decision to go with Linux in general or Redhat in
particular, but I wouldn't have necessarily lobbied against it had I
been a part of the process at the time.
I've been faced with similar decisions, and I can
S Destika wrote:
I was expecting one *community inspired* reply from Sun guys - all replies
I got were targetted at selling Solaris at the expense of spreading FUD
against Linux either due to vested interests in selling Solaris or due to
plain misunderstanding.
So given that you started
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 02:05 pm, S Destika wrote:
[b][u][i]Solaris has always been good under load, something Linux falls
with typically. It really wasn't until recentely that Linux could handle 2
CPUs, and the only reason it can *marginally* utilize 2 CPUs is due to
Moore's Law, IMO.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:14:16PM -0700, S Destika wrote:
Every statement of mine claiming Linux is faster than Solaris was backed with
specifics (Faster at creating processes, threads, etc. for e.g.) and numbers
- Solaris bug database, SPEC benchmarks proving Linux SMP scalability is not
Alan DuBoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 09:08 am, Joerg Schilling wrote:
No, I was on vacation and before I had problems with bugs in
newer OpenSolaris releases.
Are you sure that wasn't a bug in star? gdr;-)
Well, svc.startd and inetd seem to be outside my scope
ZFS is a 128 bit filesystem, isn't it?
So I hope it uses 128 bit inode numbers too.
but it should at least use 64 bit for inode numbers.
Now what happens to a 32 bit application that calls stat(2)
on a file that uses an inode number that is outside the
32 bit scope. Whill this cause stat(2)
Hello S,
Saturday, October 8, 2005, 5:06:46 AM, you wrote:
SD It's common knowledge for any technical person that Linux is faster than
Solaris. Till Solaris 10 the gap in performance was _huge_. I speak this from
realworld experience. But people who have
SD used Solaris 10 claim it has gotten
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
The installation scripts really only care about ethernet, disk and the
console (graphics, keyboard, mouse
The problem is the installation routine does not recognize many ethernet
cards that are on the Solaris HCL. Perhaps Alan (DuBoff) would care to
James C. McPherson wrote:
Please don't confuse Sun certified with 'works with Solaris' -- they are
actually two separate things.
Don't be so defensive. :-) We are all aware of that. Keep in mind that
installation issues are not scheduled to be addressed (by the OpenSolaris
project team or
David Schanen's Complete quote was:
In my own comparions with the applications we
use, I've found Solaris and Redhat have very little to do with the
actual performance, most of it seems to be compiler dependent, and so
the major issue for me is whether or not I get reasonable uptime,
Alan DuBoff wrote:
Which device do you have that is not recognized? Let's start there.
Can you give more info on your system, and if possible the output for the
specific device from prtconf -pv?
I had the same problem with FCS. A friend helped solve the problem (thus I
know the network card
Darren J Moffat wrote:
[ I've cc'd and set reply-to for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 07:38, mnikhil m wrote:
(snip...)
Ok..I have a requirement like this..
I have an NIS domain comprising of 10 boxes , lets say..
and I have one prod box and I want to allow only people who
Ok, your claim that Linux has gotten
better is well taken. Let's
move on.
Alright - there is no further reason for debate. I generally try and avoid
flaming people and succeed quite a few times but if I lost control some times,
please forgive.
I am watching the Solaris bugzilla with the
On Tuesday 11 October 2005 07:00 pm, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
I had the same problem with FCS. A friend helped solve the problem (thus I
know the network card is supported). Just forgot to write down what he
did. This message posted from opensolaris.org
If you can send the output of prtconf -pv
I'm not the original author - I've just ported it to
Solaris 9 then 10, and fixed a couple of bugs.
Just for curiosity, how can you ported it to S9? I think there was no public
document on how to implement Solaris file system before.
Thanks,
Ray
However, now that I have access to the
2. File a bug with a specific, repeatable benchmark
with clear results
comparing Solaris to insert OS here.
I am waiting for the existing ones to be fixed - some are dated 1999. I don't
think there is point in running duplicate benchmarks and filing new ones. Most
of them are quite
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:26 am, Ben Rockwood
wrote:
But, back to the origonal post... of all the
filesystems on Linux I
think ReiserFS would be on the bottom of my list.
ext2/3 is what people
need. XFS/JFS would be damned nice.
How about having all of them .. Check out
24 matches
Mail list logo
