[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: JAVA iSCSI Target implementation ? / was:Re:Re:

2006-04-17 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
Same thing happening to me (Solaris 9, on a Sun Blade 100). Any progress with the netbsd iSCSI target on SPARC? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Philip Brown
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 03:35:52AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote: Saturday, April 15, 2006, 2:27:45 AM, PB writes... PB Basically, blastwave packages are set up to be binary distributions, not PB developer distributions. PB If you want to compile other stuff against our packages, you are

Re: Re[3]: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Casper . Dik
I know Solaris has a slower release cycle - but with CCD developed by Open Solaris community it could change - I mean CCD could be uptodate as Blastwave or other projects. Now it would be up to client if he/she wants the latest from OpenSolaris or Solaris release boundled CCD. The big advantage

[osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Eric Boutilier
Casper Dik wrote: I know Solaris has a slower release cycle - but with CCD developed by Open Solaris community it could change - I mean CCD could be uptodate as Blastwave or other projects. Now it would be up to client if he/she wants the latest from OpenSolaris or Solaris release boundled CCD.

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Rich Teer
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Eric Boutilier wrote: An up-to-date CCD (and JDS) drives an up-to-date SFW, which reduces (dramatically reduces?) the need for distros and ports projects to install duplicate libraries. Or put another way, the OpenSolaris standard base improves in a way that

[osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Jim Grisanzio
hey, guys. Google has announced its 2006 Summer of Code: http://code.google.com/summerofcode.html This is the second summer where Google has engaged student developers worldwide to participate on a variety of open source projects under this mentoring program. OpenSolaris has applied to be one

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Build times for Open Solaris....

2006-04-17 Thread Holger Berger
On 4/14/06, Menno Lageman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I happen to have access to a T2000 (1 GHz, 32 strands) for a couple of days, so I ran a nightly of on20050327: Nightly distributed build completed: Thu Apr 13 22:17:16 CEST 2006 Total build time real2:26:51 This

Re: [osol-discuss] However, the zfs file system /export/zfs_0 must be shared ?? What ?

2006-04-17 Thread Holger Berger
On 4/12/06, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So why not have /export/zfs_0/ /export/zfs_0/jumpstart /export/zfs_0/jumpstart/s10 /export/zfs_0/jumpstart/s10/SXCRb35 all as separate ZFS filesystems, they are cheap after all :-) It is

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Menno Lageman
Michael Pogue wrote: I have a suggestion: in another current thread, Build times for Open Solaris, there's discussion about build parallelism on a Niagara (T1000), and how we don't get much benefit in build time beyond 4 CPUs. I just retracted that statement... It does improve with more

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Muppalla Sridhar
Hi Mike, This looks to be a good project. Student should get access to T1000 box. Which group within Sun can give T1000 access to student? thanks M.Sridhar Michael Pogue wrote On 04/17/06 01:59 PM,: I have a suggestion: in another current thread, Build times for Open Solaris, there's

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] However, the zfs file system /export/zfs_0 must be shared ?? What ?

2006-04-17 Thread Eric Schrock
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 09:41:21PM +0200, Holger Berger wrote: It is still a bug which should be fixed. The requirement that only the base of a ZFS file system can be shared is a serious limitation which will hamper or even prevent deployment of ZFS at large sites. I haven't quite grokked

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Jim Grisanzio
Michael Pogue wrote: I have a suggestion: in another current thread, Build times for Open Solaris, there's discussion about build parallelism on a Niagara (T1000), and how we don't get much benefit in build time beyond 4 CPUs. I think that it would be a great Summer of Code project, to

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: JAVA iSCSI Target implementation ? / was:Re:Re:

2006-04-17 Thread Alistair Crooks
Just to explain what the current situation is: + the NetBSD iSCSI target should build and run on Solaris x86/Sparc just fine (I have an AXi with Solaris 9 on it) - I fixed some alignment bugs in the target yesterday. + it should interoperate/work just fine with the MS initiator + there is an

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Price
On Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 02:24PM, Jim Grisanzio wrote: Michael Pogue wrote: I have a suggestion: in another current thread, Build times for Open Solaris, there's discussion about build parallelism on a Niagara (T1000), and how we don't get much benefit in build time beyond 4 CPUs. I think

[osol-discuss] Installing Solaris on a remote x86 box?

2006-04-17 Thread Moazam Raja
Hi all, I'm interested in installing Solaris 10/11 x86 on a remote x86 machine which does *not* have LOM. I have serial console access to the machine and it is currently running Linux. Is there an easy way I can install Solaris on this machine via an ISO file, or a partition with a Solaris

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Michael Pogue
I'm not suggesting a new OpenSolaris Project, although that would certainly be one way to do it. I'm just suggesting a Google Summer of Code project. If it ends up being just one Summer of Code student that takes this on, then a full-blown OpenSolaris Project for one person might be overkill.

Re: [osol-discuss] Google Summer of Code: Call for OpenSolaris Participation

2006-04-17 Thread Alan Coopersmith
Jim Grisanzio wrote: Michael Pogue wrote: I have a suggestion: in another current thread, Build times for Open Solaris, there's discussion about build parallelism on a Niagara (T1000), and how we don't get much benefit in build time beyond 4 CPUs. I think that it would be a great Summer of

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Re: Build times for Open Solaris....

2006-04-17 Thread Menno Lageman
Holger Berger wrote: I think one part of this jigsaw is the disk bottleneck. If you build ON on a tmpfs volume you should have a far better CPU utilisation on Niagara. Nothing beats real data, so I ran a nightly on a tmpfs file system with max jobs = 32. The build time decreases from 1:53

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Price
On Tue 11 Apr 2006 at 03:02PM, Nils Nieuwejaar wrote: Peter Buckingham wrote: There was some discussion about having a more technical mailing list/community ala freebsd hackers/lkml/... Was there any progress made on that? I'm definitely interested in discoverying/learning more

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Rich Teer
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Dan Price wrote: Naming a mailing list filled with technical kernel content after an obscure lake in Canada seems maximally confusing to me, and would seem to make As opposed to naming it after an obscure state in the US? ;-) Joking aside, I agree that mailing list

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Alan DuBoff
On Thursday 13 April 2006 03:24 pm, Philip Brown wrote: *wave*. *wave*.;-) (I've been away on vacation for a week, and have over 2000 messages in my inbox, but it happened that yours was at the top of the stack;-) You forgot to mention that you a conspirator in the [EMAIL PROTECTED], err...I

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Martin Schaffstall
On 4/18/06, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Dan Price wrote: Naming a mailing list filled with technical kernel content after an obscure lake in Canada seems maximally confusing to me, and would seem to make As opposed to naming it after an obscure state in the US?

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Bart Smaalders
Martin Schaffstall wrote: Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. That works, and seems somehow familiar. We've always (well, for the 17+ years I've been here) had a kernel mailing list. We could put your idea in first normal form and have [EMAIL PROTECTED] There

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Dan Price
On Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 04:55PM, Bart Smaalders wrote: Martin Schaffstall wrote: Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. That works, and seems somehow familiar. We've always (well, for the 17+ years I've been here) had a kernel mailing list. We could put your idea

[osol-discuss] Re: Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Shawn Walker
On Mon 17 Apr 2006 at 05:28PM, Daniel B. Price wrote: Can I ask a dumb question: why are we calling this the muskoka project? Naming a mailing list filled with technical kernel content after an obscure lake in Canada seems maximally confusing to me, and would seem to make it harder for

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread David J. Orman
I agree about keeping the scope broader (with perhaps sub-discussions more specific? Don't know if this is do-able..). At the same time, I also agree a better name is in order, when I saw Muskoka I quit reading previously. I didn't even realize it was simply the technical mailing list, due to

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Erast Benson
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 16:23 -0700, Alan DuBoff wrote: However, what I personally would like to see is the same thing I've always invisioned from the days of yesteryear...That we could have a full distribution that rivaled any of the open source distributions with Solaris as our core, rather

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: technical (kernel?) discussion list progress?

2006-04-17 Thread Martin Schaffstall
On 4/18/06, Bart Smaalders [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin Schaffstall wrote: Obvious choice would be SKML, the Solaris Kernel Mailing List. That works, and seems somehow familiar. We've always (well, for the 17+ years I've been here) had a kernel mailing list. We could put your idea in

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Glynn Foster
Hi, On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 14:52 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: Another +1 here. And for another huge reason why it's important to go hash it out ASAP, consider the build systems that the other distros are planning/doing for freeware apps: - The SchilliX project plans to implement the

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Erast Benson
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 13:26 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: Hi, On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 14:52 -0500, Eric Boutilier wrote: Another +1 here. And for another huge reason why it's important to go hash it out ASAP, consider the build systems that the other distros are planning/doing for

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Glynn Foster
Hiya, On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 15:24 -0700, Philip Brown wrote: This issue came up wy back 5 years(?) ago when I started things off. We initially tried to build on top of Sun shipped stuff, which at that time, was all living in /opt/sfw. It didnt work. I just wonder if those are a

[osol-discuss] niagra + solaris vs linux article, possible idea for the technically capable

2006-04-17 Thread David J. Orman
What do people think about this? I just saw it on some OSNews story I was reading (don't cane me please..) http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/category/niagara/ Maybe somebody would be interested in working with the guy to analyze the situation and determine the cause of the performance disparity?

Re: [osol-discuss] Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Glynn Foster
On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 07:41 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: Let's consider the posibility that someone joins and claims to be a programmer for company XYZ Inc. In truth they work for no one. We call up company XYZ to confirm that they actually work there and then someone will say yes, they work

[osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread Eric Boutilier
Hi Alan, On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Alan DuBoff wrote: ... everyone, the blastwaves, the nexentras, pkgsrc, et all...or is this even possible? I think it would be possible to give these folks an option by having a common set of libs that Sun and Community participates in, what do you think? We

[osol-discuss] OpenSolaris Weekly News #8

2006-04-17 Thread Glynn Foster
Hi, Here's OpenSolaris Weekly News #8. As always feedback, or content [from the missing represented communities] welcome. I probably did a poor job of summarizing the biggest thread this week on the Nevada Companion Software proposal - I blame Keith ;) Glynn == Tom Erickson announced [1]

Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project proposal: Nevada Companion Software

2006-04-17 Thread ken mays
Going back to the comments about Nexenta build system: 1. What ever happened to running Debian/Linux packages natively (or by wrapper)?? 2. Can we build from Nexenta in providing Debian packages for Schillix, SXCR, and Belenix??? 3. What is being done currently with colleges, universities, and