ALOM, RSC and Solaris 9 ...

For reasons that need not be explained (mainly for the sake of my loosely-held sanity) I have a pair of V890s which came pre-installed with Solaris 10. Lovely. Smashing. Except - we needed them to have Solaris 9 on them.
That has been achieved, using release 9/04 of the Solaris 9 install media.
Now, from what I can gather from what little I have read the ALOM+ needs to have RSC 2.2.2 installed to work, and that this can only be done after the OS is installed.
My question is this - how can I tell if it is installed (i.e., what package name do I look for), and if it is not installed from where do I get it? (yes, the servers came with NO media or documentation!).

Windows client???? Oh dear, oh dear ... I [b][i]AM[/]i[]/b] going to have to do a little bit of reading aren't I? ;)
Advice time ... these boxes (along with a couple of V440s) are going to be supported by us, from afar. Thus far I have got a connect to them via the Serial A/B port and a Secure Console gizmo. Would it be worth trying to get the ALOM/RSC setup/configured so that is what we connect to instead? I would assume getting it installed and configured would be a good idea, but what I mean is would it be better to connect to that than the serial port? Please bear in mind that you are talking to a complete idiot here!

Similar Messages

LOM, ALOM, RSC, ILOM mail alerts

Hi,
I just want to get to the bottom of this. Anyone else who experiences problems with ALOM/RSC/ILOM/LOM email alerts please post here!
I have done an audit of all my systems and found the following:
T5220 with latest firmware:
Sun System Firmware 7.2.0 2008/12/11 17:58
Host flash versions:
Hypervisor 1.7.0 2008/12/11 13:38
OBP 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:15
POST 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:43
Mail alerts work fine here
T2000 with latest firmware:
Sun-Fire-T2000 System Firmware 6.7.0 2008/12/11 14:54
Host flash versions:
OBP 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:15
Hypervisor 1.7.0 2008/12/11 13:43
POST 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:41
Mail alerts do not work. Sun advises me to
change my Production mail server to allow
broken sender header "[email protected]".
This is not good enough.
V240 with ALOM 1.6.8:
Mail alerts work fine.
V490 with RSC 2.2.2:
sc> showsc
RSC Version: 2.2.2
RSC Bootmon version: 2.2.2
RSC Firmware version: 2.2.2
Email alerts work fine!!!!
V490 with RSC 2.2.3:
rsc> showsc
RSC Version: 2.2.3
RSC Bootmon version: 2.2.2
RSC Firmware version: 2.2.3
Email alerts do not work.
So we have a case where Sun RSC is broken from RSC 2.2.3 onwards.
We have a case where the ALOM on a V240 works perfectly but the T2000 is totally b0rked and
Sun is not interested in fixing it.
So can anyone concur with my findings? Do we sort of get together and request
en-masse to get these fixed?
It would seem the programming of the SC/ALOM/ILOM/RSC are all inconsistent.
Some of them are well behaved. Some are configured in such a way I would
fail anyone submitting such work as homework etc.
I honestly believe if a service such as an RSC is setup to send email,
it should do it in a method that ensures as little risk of non-delivery
as possible, such as being able to set a hostname/domain for the sender.
As is indicated above, it appears the precedent is set for the technology
to be able to do so, but there is an inconsistent approach to this in the
Sun shop where the RSC/LOM etc are developed.
So while we're at it, how about Sun standardising the RSC across
their product line so we only have to use and support one interface?!
rachel
Edited by: virag064 on Feb 1, 2009 3:32 PM

Problem
Email alerts from ILOM not working. Test box is a T5140.
Complication
ALOM systems using the same email server have no problem.
Analysis
ILOM changed the format of the email address.
Old [ALOM] = alom-alert@[alom_IP]
New [ILOM] = ilom-alert@ilom_IP
The one that works has [] surrounding the IP.
Note: the other problem was that under certain firmwares, the Send Test Alert function in the GUI was broken. As this is how I tested ILOM email functionality, I thought it was broken when only the send mechanism was broken.
Paul Quattrociocchi from Sun found this:
Document ID:     6633026
Title:     Unable to use e-mail alert notifications via ILOM due to
IP domain in address
For example, sendmail v8.9+ will not accept "domain literal" address
([ipaddress] is a domain literal). But it does accept "@1.2.3.4"
Just fine.
So some mailers accept @1.2.3.4, some accept @[1.2.3.4]. But it
doesn't look like we can be guaranteed that any one style will work.
CR 6410008 is the same as the ILOM issue. They fixed it by quoting
RFC 2821 and changing the address to "ilom-alert@[10.100.14.104]".
The mail server that was failing showed the following in its logs [Ive removed the SMTP server and client ILOM info]:
Feb 25 10:53:22 SMTP_server postfix/smtpd[29222]: [ID 197553 mail.info] connect from ILOM_card
Feb 25 10:53:22 SMTP_server postfix/smtpd[29222]: [ID 947731 mail.warning] warning: Illegal address syntax from ILOM_card in MAIL command: ilom-alert@IP_address
Feb 25 10:53:22 SMTP_server postfix/smtpd[29222]: [ID 197553 mail.info] disconnect from ILOM_card
Fix [this is specific to the T5x40 but there are likely releases for other platforms]
Document ID:     139444-01
Title:     Hardware PROM: SPARC Enterprise T5140 & T5240 Sun System
Firmware LDOMS
Sun System Firmware 7.2.0 2008/12/11 18:19
ILOM 3.0.2.50 Dec 11 18:19:11 PST 2008
VBSC 1.7.0 Dec 11 2008 17:20:47
Hypervisor 1.7.0 2008/12/11 13:40
OBP 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:16
POST 4.30.0 2008/12/11 12:44
From the GUI you select update ILOM, but it updates everything.
This allows you to change the format of the return email address to something the SMTP server will accept.
The short-term fix
Change email servers to one that accepts the new format [no guarantee this will keep working].
If you set the sc_clieventlevel to 3 [minor] and do something, anything, that triggers an event [logging in to the GUI, logging out of the GUI, etc], you will cause email to be sent.

Vista and Solaris 10, are they compatible?

I have attempted to follow dual boot guides found everywhere, but none tailor specifically to (or eve mention) Vista. This is a problem, because Vista does not use the same method of boot as previous versions of NT.
So far, in my many failed attempts at creating a Vista dual boot, I have experienced this:
When I install Solaris 10 on any partition (Solaris installs correctly and works great), and then attempt to install Windows Vista, Vista says all of my partitions do not meet its requirements for installation (that the drive is NTFS and at least 12 GB is all it tells me). Even after formatting, deleting, recreating, and reformatting a drive, the drive is still unusable. Only after deleting ALL drives, including Solaris 10, and recreating and brand new first partition does Vista allow me to install. If I create a partition that Vista allows me to use, and also a partition to use with Solaris, and THEN install Solaris, the partition that Vista liked can no longer be used!
When I install Windows Vista first (and it works fine) (which is what I tried first and reasoned is what I should be doing), and then install Solaris 10 on a partition (it installs correctlt and works great), I load up my computer and go into the GRUB bootloader. I can select Windows. However, when attempting to load windows, I get an error (in the Vista font by the way) that says my operating system cannot be loaded. When I load my Vista install disc, it cannot find any installations of windows, and it cannot repair the master boot record, saying something like the filesystem is corrupt. However, just as an experiment, I loaded Vista onto the former Solaris drive, and looked at my first partition. Every file was there, intact.
I have attempted this with Windows Home Premium 32 bit, Windows Business 32 bit, and Vista Ultimate x64. I don't want to believe that it's impossible to load Vista and Solaris simultaneously, I've seen as much stating its impossibility as I've seen documents telling me how to do it (<- cold irony).
As long as I can get AN INSTALLATION of Solaris 10 on my machine at the same time I have Vista able to boot, I'm fine, but I seem to have lost on all fronts.
Edited by: ZetaZeta on Sep 19, 2007 12:30 AM

In Solaris Express, this is not an issue, according to this weblog:
http://blogs.sun.com/moinakg/entry/solaris_vista_dual_boot_conclusion
For versions of Solaris Express prior to buid 70, this method was described for creating a dual-boot with the oh-too-picky Windows Vista:
http://linux.wordpress.com/2007/02/17/vista-and-solaris-express-dual-boot/
I am going to assume that setting up a dual-boot with Solaris 10 is similar to, if not the same as, Solaris Express, since the only steps specific to Solaris are the files I copy from Solaris.
I hope this helps anyone else with a problem similar to mine.

Windows Vista and Solaris...10...install failed...help.

Hi everyone!!
i installed Solaris OS twice on my system
i have vista previously on this...
i made a partition for sol...
after installation solaris boots fine
but windows is totally corrupted and doestn boot normally
ill have to erase the whole computers HD and then reinstall it again
both the OSs are not working at the same time
with solaris already installed if i try to repair or re install windows vista its erasing solaris partition totally
please help!!! what should i do to get my system running with both OS s.
any replies.....much awaited
thank u so much in advance....
-sriya
Message was edited by:
Sriya
i have dell inspiron...just delivered yday...640m
Message was edited by:
Sriya

Install Windows first, then Solaris {not the other way round}. When Solaris installer detects Windows installation and prompts you whether to preserve Windows partition, make sure to select 'preserve' option. I believe Solaris installer creates appropriate GRUB entries for Windows and Solaris. Even if it doesn't, you can always edit the GRUB menu after the installation is complete.
Check the following web site if you need detailed instructions:
http://multiboot.solaris-x86.org/index.html

How do I install dual-boot Solaris 8 and Solaris 9 on one hard disk ?

I tried to install Solaris 8 and Solaris 9 on same disk using CDs, but
the second installation overwrote the first Solaris which was installed
previoudly on the half-disk size partition of same disk.
How do I install two Solarises on one hard disk ?
Thanks
Yakov

There are no tricks to get Solaris to dual boot on the same drive. Just allocate and pick the free slices not used by the first Solaris install when you put in the second install. Technically speaking there is nothing preventing you from running seven separately bootable Solaris instances on the same drive (one of 8 available slices is overlap -- slice 2) provided you use a swap file on a root partition instead of reserving a whole slice for swap.

Dual boot windows 7 and solaris 11

Hi Friends,
Could some one please explain the steps to install dual boot windows 7 and solaris 11?
Thanks
Raja

Install Windows leaving a partition for Solaris. Install Solaris into the empty partition. Reboot. Use a partition manager if you need to shrink your current Windows Partition. GParted works great and is free.
alan

Dual Boot Windows 7 and solaris 10

Can some body guide me how to dual boot windows 7 and solaris 10?
Thanks

First partition your harddisk with at least 2 primary partitions, one for windows and the other for solaris if you only have one harddisk. It would be a good idea to create an additional small boot partition as the first partition as well if you intend on using an independent boot loader but it really depends on what your machine is capable of. For example, if you have multiple harddisk and your BIOS supports it, then you could just install each OS onto its own harddisk and use the BIOS function to disable/boot off specific harddisk. Otherwise, if you only have one harddisk and created multiple partitions, install windows7 first followed by solaris10, obviously installing into different partitions. If you have created a boot partition, then you can install the boot loader into that dedicated partition.

Dual Booting Windows and Solaris

Hi
how do i dual boot windows and solaris
Do i install windows first and then solaris or do it the other way around..?
how do i make sure that Windows and Solaris appear in my boot options..?
Is their a guide on doing this...?
Thanks
Liam

Hey I did a quick google search for you. So I havent tried this method myself but it sounds reasonable.
The text below is from the following link:
http://www.hccfl.edu/pollock/AUnix1/DualBoot.htm
"Solaris boot loader
Partition the drive to leave at least 2GB of space available for Solaris;
more drive space is desirable.
As with Linux, install Windows first then Solaris.
Do not use the Installation CD but boot and install
from Software CD 1.
If you accept the default partitioning scheme which
the installer provides you will soon run out of space in
your / and /usr partitions since only enough space is
allocated to install the system.
All extra space is allocated to /export/home.
A typical installation on a 4.5GB partition might look
something like this:
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/dsk/c0d0s0 900M 536M 310M 64% /
/dev/dsk/c0d0s1 334M 109M 192M 36% /var
swap 671M 8.0k 671M 1% /var/run
swap 671M 8.0k 671M 1% /tmp
/dev/dsk/c0d0s5 845M 222M 565M 29% /opt
# (FAT32 partition):
/dev/dsk/c0d0p0:1 5.0G 3.3G 1.6G 66% /c
/dev/dsk/c0d0s7 1.1G 92M 954M 9% /export/home
/dev/dsk/c0d0s4 752M 225M 474M 33% /usr/local
The Solaris boot selector enables you to choose either
Solaris or Windows with Solaris as the default.
(I prefer grub or lilo!)
To mount FAT under Solaris:
# mount -F pcfs /dev/dsk/c0d0p0:c /dos (or �:1�?)
And the vfstab file:
/dev/dsk/c0d0p0:c - /dos pcfs - yes -
To create a GRUB boot floppy, follow these steps:
$ mkfs -t ext2 /dev/fd0
$ mount /dev/fd0 /mnt/fd0
$ mkdir /mnt/fd0/boot /mnt/fd0/boot/grub
$ cp /boot/grub/stage[12] /boot/grub/grub.conf \
> /mnt/fd0/boot/grub
$ /sbin/grub --batch <
Hope this helps!
/Oscar

Compiler directives to differetiate between solaris 9 and solaris 10

i have an API which makes certain function calls which are different for solaris 9 and solaris 10. i cannot add my own defines, since that would mean that applications too would have to define them.
does the Sun Workshop compiler provide any default directives to differentiate between solaris 9 and solaris 10? something like #ifdef __SunOS_5.10 or something like that?
thanks.

As explained in the C Users Guide, the compiler predefines several macros, one of which is represents the Solaris version number.
The macro name is derived from the output of the commands
uname -s and uname -r, starting with __, connected by _, and with dots replaced by _.
Running on Solaris 9:
% uname -s
SunOS
% uname -r
5.9
The defined macro name is __SunOS_5_9
On Solaris 10 you get __SunOS_5_10
__SunOS_5_9

SSH Differences between Solaris 9 and Solaris 10

I use public key authentication when connecting via SSH but have noticed a difference between Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 and wondered if it's an environment setup issue. I keep my keys in $HOME/.ssh
When connecting from Solaris 9 I can provide an identity file without a path regardless of the directory that I'm in e.g.
ssh -i my_identity_file user@hostnameThe above works even if I'm not in the $HOME/.ssh directory. But when using the same from Solaris 10 I get the following error:
Warning: Identity file my_identity_file does not exist.If I run the command from $HOME/.ssh on Solaris 10 it connects fine, and if I pass in the path like so it works fine:
ssh -i $HOME/.ssh/my_identity_file user@hostnameIs there a setting specific to SSH somewhere as I can't see anything in my environment that's different between the two systems. There's certainly no entry in $PATH that points to $HOME/.ssh. How could I get SSH to work on Solaris 10 by just providing the identity file name and not the full path
Regards
Rich

It's not explicitly defined in /etc/ssh/ssh_config, so I'm assuming it would be using the default which is ~/.ssh/id_dsa.
But surely that's irrelevant if I'm using the -i switch to provide the identity file?
Remember the problem here is that I have to provide a full path to the identity file, whereas before just the filename would do.
Rich

Function-Based Indexes (FBI) on Linux and Solaris

I have a question about FBI on different systems (Linux and Solaris).
---- Oracle on Linux -----
SQL> CREATE TABLE T_DUMMY(NAME VARCHAR(20));
Table created.
SQL> CREATE INDEX T_DUMMY_IDX ON T_DUMMY(UPPER(NAME));
Index created.
However, when I do the same on the Oracle running on Solaris, I get the following error:
---- Oracle on Solaris -----
SQL> CREATE TABLE T_DUMMY(NAME VARCHAR(20));
Table created.
SQL> CREATE INDEX T_DUMMY_IDX ON T_DUMMY(UPPER(NAME));
CREATE INDEX T_DUMMY_IDX ON T_DUMMY(UPPER(NAME))
ERROR at line 1:
ORA-01031: insufficient privileges
I know that I have to add "QUERY REWRITE" in order to create a FBI. However, why Oracle on Linux behave differently. Would it be any difference/problem if I do NOT add "QUERY REWRITE" for Oracle on Linux (For example, would the EXPLAIN PLAN different)?

general user settings are the same (privilege, role) Well, the specific settings must be different. I would check to see whether one of the roles has been granted the QUERY REWRITE system privilege on your Linux instance but not on Solaris.
Cheers, APC

Running Solaris 8 and Solaris 10 on a SPARC box at the same time

I know that this is not possible, but still... need to clear it out from the experts...
Have a upgrade request of Solaris 8 to Solaris 10. However, Solaris 8 environment should not be disturbed. How can this be done without going for another SPARC box?
Can I have both Solaris 8 and Solaris 10 running concurrently on the same SPARC box?
Thanks in advance.

Have a upgrade request of Solaris 8 to Solaris 10.
However, Solaris 8 environment should not be
disturbed. How can this be done without going for
another SPARC box?
Can I have both Solaris 8 and Solaris 10 running
concurrently on the same SPARC box?You can add a second boot disk and use Sun's Live Update to install the upgrade on the second boot disk. Boot from either, though you can't run both simultaneously.

Defferent work usleep in Solaris 10 and Solaris 9

I've compile program in Solaris 9 and Solaris 10(cc or gcc).
On Solaris 9 cpu load is lower then 1 %.
On Solaris 10 cpu load is more then 16%.
Why I have this big difference. 16% is very big for me.

I presume you compiled php on the Sun server, was this done using gcc or the Sun One C compiler.
If the latter then you can also use the flag: --enable-nonportable-atomics when you run configure

How to restart services in windows and solaris environment?

I need to start services running in windows and solaris platforms with java code. I have a fair idea how to do in C++ . So wondering if same can be done with java. .. Please help me out!
Thanx

you may also like to look at the wrapper project on source forge. It lets you set up services under any O/S with full control of the JVM that is running.
Btw my previous answer only helps you under MS, didn't notice that you wished to know how to do it under unix. If its a non-java service, you will need to determine what platform your on and then perform the appropriate action.

Windows NT 4.0 and Solaris 8

Hello everyone,
I have an Intel Pentium system with Windows NT 4.0 SP 6 and I would like to be able to install Solaris 8 on this system and dual-boot. I have 2 hard disks and I plan to install Solaris on the second one. The installation instruction says insert the "Solaris Installation" CD and boot the system. I tried that with the BIOS option set to boot from my CD but nothing happens and it just boots Windows NT as usual. Can anyone tell me what is wrong? I haven't partitioned the new hard disk yet - I was hoping to get into the Solaris installation first to do it.
Please help.
Thanks

I have the same configuration you describe - NT (now W2K) on the primary master (NTFS) and Solaris on the secondary master. I deleted all partitions off the second disk using the W2K disk manager and installed Solaris to the second disk. I left 500 mb free on the second disk and after the Solaris install I formated the area as FAT16 for a common transfer area between the two OS's. It took me a while to get DSL to work on Solaris so I needed a big area for downloads for Solaris via W2K. I now automatically mount the area as /dos using vfstab. You can download bootpart 2.50 from http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm. This version has a LBA option for large disks. It copies the Solaris MBR over to the NT drive as a file and updates the boot.ini so you can select Solaris as a boot option from NT. It's not dangerous and you will get tired of that bios stuff real quick!
Lee

ALOM, RSC and Solaris 9 ...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for