Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

unix

    Sponsored Links

    Next

  • 1. The horrible truth about Linux libs
    On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:31:51 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Since I like to slag the Linux library issues I thought it would be a good > idea to post the facts : > > [root@H99 root]# du -sk /usr/* > 262444 /usr/bin > 4 /usr/dict > 4 /usr/etc > 3912 /usr/games > 92896 /usr/include > 4624 /usr/kerberos > 1545608 /usr/lib > 12044 /usr/libexec > 88 /usr/local > 55260 /usr/sbin > 2249632 /usr/share > 192888 /usr/src > 0 /usr/tmp > 176120 /usr/X11R6 > > Yes, that is 1.5Gb in /usr/lib and /usr/share on Red Hat Linux 9. Hmmmm, I have a "complete" RH-9 install here and [a]# du -sk usr/* 0 usr/X11 197732 usr/X11R6 0 usr/adm 95116 usr/bin 0 usr/dict 136564 usr/doc 40 usr/etc 1080 usr/games 2220 usr/i386-slackware-linux 56728 usr/include 9632 usr/info 628872 usr/lib 23976 usr/libexec 84732 usr/local 29712 usr/man 18944 usr/sbin 536148 usr/share 0 usr/spool 299940 usr/src 0 usr/tmp [a]# cat etc/redhat-release Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike) > People call Windows bloatware. Looks like RH9 Linux is there now. Well, WinXP requires over 2.2GB of drive space on the default install and that includes -no- servers whatever.
  • 2. Changing permissions of ps command
    Hi All, I have a problem here, i had tried to change the prmissions of command ps to 777 from 555. But the permissions of few other files are getting changed. I had noticed that all these files are hard links and their inode is same. Probably because of this it is creating the problem. But, the output of each program is different. Anyways, how do i set permission for only this files. Your suggestions will be highly Appreciated. Regards, Kishore.
  • 3. Sol9/olvwm/depth
    Before upgrading server machines from Sol8 to 9 I've jumpstarted Solaris 9/04 plus current patches on my Blade to test and play with. For several reasons I'd like to continue using OpenWindows or alike instead of CDE. Several people suggested installing the old OW packages. I tried the minimal approach of copying my olvwm and a stripped down version of the openwin start script over to Sol9. openwin basically fires up X11 by issuing "xinit -- /usr/openwin/X :0". Everything works fine except two things that puzzle me (as a non-X11-buff): 1) Even when setting "m64config -depth 24" the olvwm (and others) come up with only 8 bit color depth whereas CDE starts with a truecolor visual. But both use the same X-server, so what's missing? 2) Applications don't find the 6x12 font ("trying fixed instead"), but the font is there and is included in the font path as well as in the fonts.dir etc. stuff. xterm -fn 7x13 or -fn 6x10 or -fn 6x13 works. Ideas? Uwe anti-spam: Remove "duMMy." from address above to obtain correct one

Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Ian » Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:30:45 GMT

I had the following error doing a live upgrade form 10GA on a Sparc system:

ERROR: Installation of the packages from this media of the media failed; 
pfinstall returned these diagnostics:

Processing profile
ld.so.1: pfinstall: fatal: relocation error: file 
/mnt/Solaris_10/Tools/Boot/usr/snadm/lib/libspmisvc.so.1: symbol 
zonecfg_set_root: referenced symbol not found

Any clues?

I confirmed the ISO checksum on another thread.

Ian

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby p.tribble » Sat, 24 Dec 2005 07:29:30 GMT

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
	Ian < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

That symbol is in the libzonecfg.so.1 supplied in Update 1, but missing
in the S10 version.

You could try applying patch 120900-03, which you should find on the
Update 1 media in the Solaris_10/UpgradePatches directory. At least,
the libzonecfg.so.1 file in that patche does contain the missing
symbol. (Whether it's sufficient just to apply this patch I don't
know.)

[That's the sparc patch; x86 is 120901-03.]

-- 
-Peter Tribble
L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire -  http://www.**--****.com/ 
 http://www.**--****.com/ ://ptribble.blogspot.com/

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Ian » Sat, 24 Dec 2005 08:51:30 GMT


Thanks Peter, that looks to be working now.

Where did you find this information, is there a release note I overlooked?

I'm curious because LU works from 10GA to the latest Express without any 
issues, at least on x86.

Ian

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby andrew » Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:17:49 GMT

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
	Ian < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:



On x86, you'll need at least patch 117435-02, or LU quickly falls
over when it can't find /sbin/biosdev.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby ptribble » Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:23:53 GMT

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
	Ian < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:



Release notes? Who bothers reading documentation in the 21st century?

I always have a poke around the image to see what packages have been
added or deleted in the Product directory, and to see if there's any
new versions under ExtraValue, and happened to stumble across the new
UpgradePatches directory. It was fairly obvious that you were running
into problems from linking against an old version of a library, and it
was but a small step from that to check which patch might supply the
updated library.

-- 
-Peter Tribble
L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire -  http://www.**--****.com/ 
 http://www.**--****.com/ ://ptribble.blogspot.com/

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby James Carlson » Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:12:02 GMT

Ian < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:



Start with the live_upgrade(5) page.  It says:

NOTES
     Correct operation of Solaris Live Upgrade  requires  that  a
     limited  set  of patch revisions be installed for a given OS
     version. Before installing or running Live Upgrade, you  are
     required to install the limited set of patch revisions. Make
     sure you have the most recently updated patch list  by  con-
     sulting   http://www.**--****.com/ .  Search  for  the  infodoc
     72099 on the SunSolve web site.

That document says:

S10 FCS x86 119255-13 or higher patchadd/patchrm patches
S10 FCS x86 119318-01 or higher SVr4 Packaging Commands (usr) Patch
S10 FCS x86 117435-01 or higher biosdev patch for GRUB Boot
S10 FCS x86 120901-03 or higher SUNWzoneu required patch
S10 FCS x86 121334-02 or higher SUNWzoneu required patch
S10 FCS x86 121431-02 or higher SUNWlur/SUNWluu required fro S10
S10 FCS x86 120236-01 or higher SUNWluzone required patches
S10 FCS x86 121429-01 or higher SUNWluzone required patches

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Ivan Wang » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:12:57 GMT





  Great, I've been hit by the same "situation" (maybe Sun doesn't
consider it;s a bug)
  Now finally, if I have any luck, I can live upgrade from Sol 10
03/05.


  Yes, I think most people cared about to live upgrade will man
live_upgrade,
  Though the 72099 is not availble to public, and requires a Sun
Support contract account
  to download.

  Does this mean that Live Upgrade is a feature available ONLY to users
who have signed
  with Sun Support? since vital information to perform a live upgrade
is restricted.

  Regards,
  Ivan.



Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Thomas Maier-Komor » Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:01:39 GMT



that is the thought I had, too. I don't really understand this. And
even more I don't understand why the installer of live-upgrade 01/06
does not check for the patches, although they are available on the
install media. It only tells you to do this and take a look at the
f****ing 72099 and do this yourself. This could be solved automatically
with some lines of shell script...

What is the reasoning behind all this? I don't really understand it...

Tom

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Martin Paul » Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:46:13 GMT





I've searched docs.sun.com and sunsolve for information about the
new UpgradePatches directory, but it doesn't seem to be documented
anywhere. Does anybody know why it was included, and whether it's
used during the installation ?

As it occupies 1.1 GB on my install server, I'd prefer to remove it.
In a few weeks the patches will be obsoleted by age anyway.

mp.
-- 
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Casper H.S. Dik » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 01:07:06 GMT

Martin Paul < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


I believe the UpgradePatches directory is there specifically
to allow for upgrades with zones; it appears to contain all
or most patches integrated it S10u1.

It is not used during ordinary install or upgrade as far
as I can tell.

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Youri Podchosov » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:44:36 GMT



Guys,

where do you find that UpgradePatches directory?  I just ran find(1) 
against all 4 mounted S10U1 ISO images and it didn't return anything. On 
those S10U1/SPARC images (downloaded 12/07) I have nothing like 
Upgrade*, only an empty Patches directory on the 1st CD.  How come?

-- 
/ynp

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Martin Paul » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:40:52 GMT



I don't know about the CDs, as I downloaded (and mounted with lofiadm)
the DVD ISO image, and there it's right under Solaris_10, in the same
directory level as Docs, ExtraValue, Misc, Patches (empty), Product,
and Tools.

mp.
-- 
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Casper H.S. Dik » Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:54:16 GMT

Youri Podchosov < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


It's only on the DVD image.  Are they putitng those up for download
yet?  (If not, in Soalris 10u1, the DVD offers more than the CD isos
so it's not an option not to make it available for download)

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Ivan Wang » Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:31:52 GMT




  Ok, so how exactly are users without access to infodoc 72099 supposed
to do
  live upgrade "the right way"? Applying all pacthes in UpgradePatches?
or LU is
  just not for those? It's a pity if latter is the case though.

  And, is LU in Solaris Express going smoother in general than official
Solaris releases?
  One thing is absolutely amazing when LU works is the ability to
upgrade current system  without the fear to destroy it..

  Regards,
  Ivan.


Re: Update 1 Live upgrade bug?

Postby Gary Mills » Wed, 04 Jan 2006 02:46:08 GMT

In < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > "Ivan Wang" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:






I did a Solaris 10 upgrade from 3/05 to 1/06 a few days ago.
The machine was already up to date on released patches.  I only
had to apply 120900-03 for LU to succeeded.  Of course, once I
booted the upgraded boot environment, it was fully patched with
patches that are integrated into Solaris 10 1/06, many of which
are not yet released.

-- 
-Gary Mills-    -Unix Support-    -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-

Similar Threads:

1.Need help with Live Upgrade, S-10, update 3 to update 6

I'm trying to upgrade this machine which now has Solaris 10 Update 3
to Update 6 using Live Upgrade.

I'm stuck at my current install and would appreciate help in
upgrading,

(btw, I posted this in Sun.com forums too)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current layout (sparc system w 3 disks)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Disk 0: 16 GB:
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 1.9G /
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 692M /usr/openwin
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s3 7.7G /var
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s4 3.9G swap
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s5 2.5G /tmp

Disk 1: 16 GB:
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0 7.7G /usr
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s1 1.8G /opt
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s3 3.2G /data1
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s4 3.9G /data2

Disk 2: 33 GB:
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0s0 33G /data3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data file systems are not in use right now, and I was thinking of
partitioning the data3 into 2 or 3 file systems and then creating
a new BE.

This machine happens to have an existing Boot Environment which
is active and contains *all* file systems, even the data ones.


# lufslist -n 's10'
boot environment name: s10
This boot environment is currently active.
This boot environment will be active on next system boot.

Filesystem fstype device size Mounted on Mount Options
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s4 swap 4201703424 - -
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 ufs 2098059264 / -
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0 ufs 8390375424 /usr -
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s3 ufs 8390375424 /var -
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s3 ufs 3505453056 /data1 -
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s1 ufs 1997531136 /opt -
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s4 ufs 4294785024 /data2 -
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0s0 ufs 36507484160 /data3 -
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s5 ufs 2727290880 /tmp -
/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 ufs 770715648 /usr/openwin -

I browsed the Solaris 10 Installation Guide and the man pages
for the lu commands, but can not find how to remove the data
file systems from the BE.

# lustatus shows

Boot Environment           Is       Active Active    Can    Copy
Name                       Complete Now    On Reboot Delete Status
-------------------------- -------- ------ --------- ------ ----------
s10                        yes      yes    yes       no     -


I can not even delete this BE, when I did run ludelete, it said


WARNING: Boot environment <s10> has one or more slices mounted at .
ERROR: The boot environment <s10> is the current BE.
ERROR: You are not allowed to delete the current active BE.
Unable to delete boot environment.

So, I find myself stuck.

Is there any way to do a Live Upgrade on this system ?
or do I have to do a fresh install of Sol 10 Update 6 ?

Thanks for your help.

2.live upgrade problem to Solaris 10 update 1

Hi,

has anybody seen something like this? Does it look like a broken
dvd? Sorry that the default locale is german...

Tom


# luupgrade -u -s /cdrom/sol_10_106_sparc/s0 -n c1t1d0s3

Der Inhalt des Mediums </cdrom/sol_10_106_sparc/s0> wird erprt.
Das Medium ist ein Standard-Solaris-Medium.
Das Medium entht ein Image f eine Betriebssystem-Aufrtung.
Das Medium entht <Solaris> Version <10>.
Zu verwendendes Upgrade-Profil wird erstellt.
Das Programm f die Aufrtung des Betriebssystems wird gesucht.
Es wird geprt, ob frere eingeplante Live Upgrade-Anforderungen 
vorliegen.
Das Aufrtungsprofil f die BU <c1t1d0s3> wird erstellt.
Packages f Installation oder Upgrade von BU <c1t1d0s3> werden bestimmt.
Aufrtung des Betriebssystems von BU <c1t1d0s3> wird durchgefrt.
VORSICHT: Wenn Sie diesen Prozess unterbrechen, wird die Boot-Umgebung
mlicherweise instabil oder kann nicht gebootet werden.
/usr/sbin/luupgrade[671]: 5876 Killed (Abgebrochen)
FEHLER: Die Installation der Packages von diesem Datentrer ist 
fehlgeschlagen; pfinstall gab die folgenden Diagnostikinformationen zurk:

Processing default locales
         - Specifying default locale (de)
         - Specifying default locale (de_DE.ISO8859-1)

Processing profile
ld.so.1: pfinstall: Schwerer Fehler: Verschiebungsfehler: Datei 
/cdrom/sol_10_106_sparc/s0/Solaris_10/Tools/Boot/usr/snadm/lib/libspmisvc.so.1: 
Symbol zonecfg_set_root: referenziertes Symbol nicht gefunden
INFORMATION: Die Datei </var/sadm/system/logs/upgrade_log> in der
Boot-Umgebung <c1t1d0s3> entht ein Upgrade-Protokoll.
INFORMATION: erpren Sie die oben aufgefrten Dateien. Beachten Sie,
dass sich alle Dateien in der Boot-Umgebung <c1t1d0s3> befinden. Vor dem
Aktivieren der Boot-Umgebung <c1t1d0s3> msen Sie ermitteln, ob eine
zuszliche Systemwartung erforderlich ist bzw. ob weitere Datentrer aus
dem Distributionspaket installiert werden msen.
Die Solaris-Aufrtung der Boot-Umgebung <c1t1d0s3> ist fehlgeschlagen.

3.Live upgrade bug?

I am unable to create a new BE merging / and /opt:

lucreate -m /:/dev/md/dsk/d5:ufs, -m /opt:merged:ufs -n u320
Discovering physical storage devices
Discovering logical storage devices
Cross referencing storage devices with boot environment configurations
Determining types of file systems supported
Validating file system requests
ERROR: option <ufs> unsupported device <merged>: <merged>
ERROR: cannot validate file system </opt> option <ufs> devices <merged>
ERROR: metadevice file systems configuration is not valid
ERROR: cannot create new boot environment using file systems as configured
ERROR: please review all file system configuration options
ERROR: cannot create new boot environment using options provided

I can create the BE if / and /opt have their own file systems.

Ian

4.Live smpatch after Live Upgrade?

Is it possible to do a live upgrade, and then run smpatch against it to 
analyze integrate the latest patches on the offline image?

5.Live Upgrade broken for Solaris 9 to Solaris 10 upgrade

Has anyone else run into this problem?  I'm using Live Upgrade to upgrade
a Solaris 9 server to Solaris 10.  I created a boot environment on a
separate disk, and then upgraded it to Solaris 10 with `luupgrade -u'.
Now when I go to use `luupgrade -t' to apply the latest Solaris 10
patches to it, I get this...

  Validating the contents of the media </var/tmp/patches>.
  The media contains 220 software patches that can be added.
  All 220 patches will be added because you did not specify any specific patches to add.
  Mounting the BE <s10lu>.
  ERROR: The boot environment <s10lu> supports non-global zones.The current boot environment does not support non-global zones. Releases prior to Solaris 10 cannot be used to maintain Solaris 10 and later releases that include support for non-global zones. You may only execute the specified operation on a system with Solaris 10 (or later) installed.

Is there a way to make this work?  The new BE can't possibly contain a
a non-global zone.

-- 
-Gary Mills-    -Unix Support-    -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-

6. Solaris 8 upgrade using Live upgrade method

7. Live Upgrade fails during upgrade from Solaris 10 U7 to U8

8. [News] DrupalCon Has Live Streams, Drupal Has Free New Upgrade



Return to unix

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guest