Hello zfs-discuss,
I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id
should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support.
However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still
claims only
v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc.
/kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too
old.
Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section
file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules.
Looks like they are not delivered.
?????????????????????????????????
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
http://milek.blogspot.com
>Hello zfs-discuss, > > I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id > should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support. > > However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still claims only > v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc. > > /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too > old. > > Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section > file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules. > Looks like they are not delivered.Have you also installed the companion patch 124205-04? It contains all the ZFS bits. Casper
Hello Robert,
Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:26:57 PM, you wrote:
RM> Hello zfs-discuss,
RM> I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs
id
RM> should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support.
RM> However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade''
still claims only
RM> v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc.
RM> /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too
RM> old.
RM> Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section
RM> file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules.
RM> Looks like they are not delivered.
RM> ?????????????????????????????????
Looks like 124205-04 is needed.
While I can see it on SunSolve smpatch doesn''t show it.
Also many ZFS bugs listed in 124205-04 are also listed in 118855-36 while
it looks like only 124205-04 is actually covering them and provides
necessary binaries.
Something is messed up with -36.
?
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
http://milek.blogspot.com
>Looks like 124205-04 is needed. >While I can see it on SunSolve smpatch doesn''t show it. > >Also many ZFS bugs listed in 124205-04 are also listed in 118855-36 while >it looks like only 124205-04 is actually covering them and provides >necessary binaries. > >Something is messed up with -36.Sometimes bugs need fixes in multiple bits of code; we also don''t like to lump so many files in a single patch. The patch was released on Feb 1st, so it may be in the pipeline. Casper
Hello Casper, Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:32:49 PM, you wrote:>>Hello zfs-discuss, >> >> I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id >> should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support. >> >> However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still claims only >> v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc. >> >> /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too >> old. >> >> Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section >> file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules. >> Looks like they are not delivered.CDSC> Have you also installed the companion patch 124205-04? It contains all CDSC> the ZFS bits. I''ve just figured it out. However why those bug ids related in ZFS are listed in -36 while actually those fixes are delivered in 124205-05 (the same bug ids)? Also why ''smpatch analyze'' doesn''t show 124205? (I can force it to download the patch if I specify it). -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
Robert Milkowski wrote:> Hello Robert, > > Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:26:57 PM, you wrote: > > RM> Hello zfs-discuss, > > RM> I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id > RM> should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support. > > RM> However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still claims only > RM> v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc. > > RM> /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too > RM> old. > > RM> Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section > RM> file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules. > RM> Looks like they are not delivered. > > > > RM> ????????????????????????????????? > > > Looks like 124205-04 is needed. > While I can see it on SunSolve smpatch doesn''t show it. > > Also many ZFS bugs listed in 124205-04 are also listed in 118855-36 while > it looks like only 124205-04 is actually covering them and provides > necessary binaries. > > Something is messed up with -36. > > > ? > >The KU looks ok to me, basically bugs in core functionality such as zfs, can and do end up in more than one patch, ie the fix might affect genunix/libc in the Ku and the zfs utilites in the zfs patch. So the bug will be listed in the KU and the ZFS patch. Enda
Robert Milkowski wrote:> Hello Casper, > > Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:32:49 PM, you wrote: > > >>> Hello zfs-discuss, >>> >>> I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id >>> should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support. >>> >>> However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still claims only >>> v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc. >>> >>> /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too >>> old. >>> >>> Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section >>> file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules. >>> Looks like they are not delivered. >>> > > > CDSC> Have you also installed the companion patch 124205-04? It contains all > CDSC> the ZFS bits. > > I''ve just figured it out. > > However why those bug ids related in ZFS are listed in -36 while > actually those fixes are delivered in 124205-05 (the same bug ids)? >because fix is spread across both KU and zfs patch I suspect. Say the fix affcts zpool and libc, then both Ku and zfs patch will have the bug listed.> Also why ''smpatch analyze'' doesn''t show 124205? (I can force it to > download the patch if I specify it). > > >Not too sure about smpatch, but I suspect that the file ( current.zip) that smpatch uses to determine of a patch is applicable has not been updated with the zfs patch yet. Patches will appear on SunSolve before they are listed by smpatch, as the build of current.zip is not done daily I believe. Just a guess, as 124205-04 was released on the 31st Enda
Hello Casper, Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:41:28 PM, you wrote:>>Looks like 124205-04 is needed. >>While I can see it on SunSolve smpatch doesn''t show it. >> >>Also many ZFS bugs listed in 124205-04 are also listed in 118855-36 while >>it looks like only 124205-04 is actually covering them and provides >>necessary binaries. >> >>Something is messed up with -36.CDSC> Sometimes bugs need fixes in multiple bits of code; we also don''t like CDSC> to lump so many files in a single patch. Ok, sounds reasonable. However imho there should be dependency between such patches otherwise people can belive they have some issues fixed while actually they don''t. At least such patches should be available THE SAME TIME. I looked in -36 bug ids and learned that some zfs issues I had here are covered so I basically did ''smpatch update'' and updated whole server beliving I had for zfs fixes. When it turned out I don''t and I have to manually download another patch and apply it in order to get actual fix. Something here is broken. Anyway thanks for quick response, also thanks for Enda. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com
/* Warning : soapbox speech ahead */> > Something here is broken. >As a rule don''t trust smpatch. Don''t trust the freeware pca either. Either one may or may not include patches that you don''t need or they may list patches you do need or seem to need but once you apply them you find your system buggered up in some way. So, in my opinion, patches are like russian roulette. So very carefully apply what you know you *need* based on actually looking in the patch readme files. The recommended pile of patches are 99.9% safe and then outside of that you have to pick and choose. Since I am on a soapbox here, I may as well be in for a pound as well as the penny. I like to install what I call a "reference edition" of Solaris. An update release like Solaris 10 Update 3 or Solaris 9 Update 8. These releases are generally very well tested and you can install them and run them in a very stable fashion long term. Once you add a single patch to that system you have wandered out of "this is shipped on media" to somewhere else. -- Dennis Clarke
On 2/5/07, Robert Milkowski <rmilkowski at task.gda.pl> wrote:> Hello Casper, > > Monday, February 5, 2007, 2:32:49 PM, you wrote: > > >>Hello zfs-discuss, > >> > >> I''ve patched U2 system to 118855-36. Several zfs related bugs id > >> should be covered between -19 and -36 like HotSpare support. > >> > >> However despite -36 is installed ''zpool upgrade'' still claims only > >> v1 and v2 support. Alse there''s no zfs promote, etc. > >> > >> /kernel/drv/zfs is dated May 18 with 482448 in size which looks too > >> old. > >> > >> Also 118855-36 has many zfs related bugs listed however in a section > >> file I do not see zfs,zpool commands or zfs kernel modules. > >> Looks like they are not delivered. > > > CDSC> Have you also installed the companion patch 124205-04? It contains all > CDSC> the ZFS bits. > > I''ve just figured it out. > > However why those bug ids related in ZFS are listed in -36 while > actually those fixes are delivered in 124205-05 (the same bug ids)? >Ah.. it looks like this patch is non-public (need a service plan). So the free as in beer version ZFS U3 bits likely won''t make it until U4 into the general release.> Also why ''smpatch analyze'' doesn''t show 124205? (I can force it to > download the patch if I specify it). > > > -- > Best regards, > Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl > http://milek.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
I''m pretty sure I have a service plan, but smpatch is not returning me the 124205 patch. I''m currently running Solaris 10, update 2. Also, has anyone had problems installing 118855-36 with smpatch? I had issues, and ended up having to install it with patchadd. David On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 08:59 -0800, Joe Little wrote: ...> > Ah.. it looks like this patch is non-public (need a service plan). So > the free as in beer version ZFS U3 bits likely won''t make it until U4 > into the general release. > > > Also why ''smpatch analyze'' doesn''t show 124205? (I can force it to > > download the patch if I specify it). > >
Hi 118855-36 is marked interactive and is not installable by automation, or at least should not be installed by smpatch. If you look in the patchpro.download.directory from "smpatch get" under the dir cache ( if I remember correctly ) you will see a current.zip ( possibly with a time stamp as part of the name ) see if 124205 is in this file, I will check with the people responsible for current.zip in the mean time. I suspect that a current.zip including this patch has not been released yet. Enda David W. Smith wrote:> I''m pretty sure I have a service plan, but smpatch is not returning me > the 124205 patch. I''m currently running Solaris 10, update 2. > > Also, has anyone had problems installing 118855-36 with smpatch? I had > issues, and ended up having to install it with patchadd. > > David > > On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 08:59 -0800, Joe Little wrote: > ... > > >> Ah.. it looks like this patch is non-public (need a service plan). So >> the free as in beer version ZFS U3 bits likely won''t make it until U4 >> into the general release. >> >> >>> Also why ''smpatch analyze'' doesn''t show 124205? (I can force it to >>> download the patch if I specify it). >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0800, David W. Smith wrote:> > Also, has anyone had problems installing 118855-36 with smpatch? I had > issues, and ended up having to install it with patchadd.Apparently, this patch, and probably all future kernel patches, can''t be applied with smpatch. The recommended procedure is to run smpatch first to apply all patches that can be applied, then apply the kernel patch in single-user mode, do a reconfiguration boot, and then run smpatch to apply the remaining patch. This is quite an unpleasant procedure when you are patching a large number of machines. You can use `smpatch add -i'' to apply the kernel patch in single-user mode, but not `smpatch update''. -- -Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
Gary, Thanks for the information these kernel type of patches. David On Mon, 2007-02-05 at 11:33 -0600, Gary Mills wrote:> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0800, David W. Smith wrote: > > > > Also, has anyone had problems installing 118855-36 with smpatch? I had > > issues, and ended up having to install it with patchadd. > > Apparently, this patch, and probably all future kernel patches, > can''t be applied with smpatch. The recommended procedure is to > run smpatch first to apply all patches that can be applied, then > apply the kernel patch in single-user mode, do a reconfiguration > boot, and then run smpatch to apply the remaining patch. This is > quite an unpleasant procedure when you are patching a large number > of machines. > > You can use `smpatch add -i'' to apply the kernel patch in single-user > mode, but not `smpatch update''. >