rd...@znas:~$ ls -l /dev/dsk/c*d0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 58 апр. 19 09:03 /dev/dsk/c4t0d0 ->
../../devices/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@0,0:wd
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 58 апр. 19 09:03 /dev/dsk/c4t1d0 ->
../../devices/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...
> ls /dev/dsk/c4t?d0
> /dev/dsk/c4t0d0 /dev/dsk/c4t1d0 /dev/dsk/c4t2d0
> /dev/dsk/c4t3d0 /dev/dsk/c4t4d0
Are you sure those /dev/dsk/c*d0 entries
are device nodes?
Try "ls -l /dev/dsk/c*d0"
and "ls -lL /dev/dsk/c*d0",
maybe they are files that have been
created by accident by a user user
with
> > Hello,
> >
> > can anyone confirm my observations with the
> attached
> > test script?
> >
> > pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57
> holes
> > in it.
> >
> > I just found out today by accident after copying a
> > large backup file. I was
> > able to reproduce the bug on Solaris
pfexec format
Searching for disks...done
AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
0. c4t0d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@0,0
1. c4t1d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@1,0
2. c4t2d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/s...@2,0
3. c4t3d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@9/pci15d9,5...@0/
> Hello,
>
> can anyone confirm my observations with the attached
> test script?
>
> pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes
> in it.
>
> I just found out today by accident after copying a
> large backup file. I was
> able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and snv133,
> on UFS an
On 6/14/2010 2:09 AM, bsd wrote:
I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting for the next release are
those who were put on hold by customer service 90 days ago. They are still on
hold waiting for someone on customer service to return and pick up.
As someone who takes enormous prid
> Edward Martinez wrote:
> > there are some some good news. Oracle released an
> Updated opensolaris roadmap.
>
> Looks pretty much exactly like what Oracle has been
> telling people for months,
> and many people here have just previously ignored.
> If repeating it one more
> me is good news,
alan pae wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am not sure whether the people that take care of
>> https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
>> are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
>
> Is OpenOffice still at 3.1 or whatever it was?
You'd get a faster answer by asking pkg.opensolaris.org than asking the list
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure whether the people that take care of
> https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
> are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
Is OpenOffice still at 3.1 or whatever it was?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensola
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 10:39 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> The update delay was being driven by factors other than the impending
> OpenSolaris release.
>
> (frankly, I suspect that they don't want to push a new sub-version each
> week, which is the current rate of bugfix releases going on since 3.2
This was asked on the virtualbox list a week ago or so, right after
3.2.2 came out.
The answer was: YES, it will be updated, though not immediately.
The update delay was being driven by factors other than the impending
OpenSolaris release.
(frankly, I suspect that they don't want to push a
> As indicated, this has been published before.
>
> Myself, I will keep checking for the new release IF
> it happens and give it a try. Otherwise, I've moved
> on.
>
> I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting
> for the next release are those who were put on hold
> by customer service
Hi,
I am not sure whether the people that take care of
https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/extra/
are hanging on that list, but Id better try.
The VirtualBox that extra serves is 3.1.8, while the version available
from virtualbox.org is 3.2.4
Are there any plans to update extra repo, or it falls tog
> > uname -a
> > SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
>
> It seems you don't have patch 138623-02 installed.
Correct, I don't have any revision of patch 138623 installed.
> I reactivated my SPARC
> machine, updated the kernel patch up to 137137-09 (it is a slow
As indicated, this has been published before.
Myself, I will keep checking for the new release IF it happens and give it a
try. Otherwise, I've moved on.
I can only think those who keep waiting and waiting for the next release are
those who were put on hold by customer service 90 days ago. Th
Am 13.06.2010 15:08, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
Daniel Rock writes:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
It seems y
Daniel Rock wrote:
> Am 13.06.2010 16:25, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
> > foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
>
> Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
> will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC. But I
> first have to patch it
> > foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
>
> Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
> will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC. But I
> first have to patch it (first time I switched the machine on since October
> 2007).
df -h .
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> I recommend
>
> star -copy -sparse -C from todir
Typo correction:
star -copy -sparse -C fromdir file todir
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Daniel Rock wrote:
> Hello,
>
> can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
>
> pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
>
> I just found out today by accident after copying a large backup file. I was
> able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and snv133,
Am 13.06.2010 16:25, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Do you test on tmpfs? Could you please re-run the tests on UFS or ZFS? I
will revive my old SPARC machine and rerun the tests myself on SPARC. But I
first have to patch it (first time I switched the mach
> foreach f ( 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 )
Forgot to say that I aborted the 4096 run since it took too long.
--
Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris
Brandt & Brandt Computer GmbH
> >> can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
> >>
> >> pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
> >
> > uname -a
> > SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
> > ./paxtest.pl
> > ffbcc5af1a2923652b9d72fe2800ff21 testfile-
Am 13.06.10 15:08, schrieb Volker A. Brandt:
Daniel Rock writes:
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
./paxtest.pl
Daniel Rock writes:
> Hello,
>
> can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
>
> pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
uname -a
SunOS shelob 5.10 Generic_141414-02 sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000
./paxtest.pl
ffbcc5af1a2923652b9d72fe2800ff21 testfi
> For companies selling software on a variety of platforms volume reduces
> development costs, a limited number of high value sales is not
> sufficient. The eco system needs to be of a size, where sales exceed
> costs. Some institutions have found to their cost that Windows is not
> reliable enough
Hello,
can anyone confirm my observations with the attached test script?
pax corrupts files if they contain more than 57 holes in it.
I just found out today by accident after copying a large backup file. I was
able to reproduce the bug on Solaris 10 and snv133, on UFS and ZFS.
Is pax in the
On Jun 13, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> For Enterprise mindshare and training, the critical point is Universities.
> Not Home Users.
>
> Take a look at the *BSDs - University is where they get the vast majority of
> their mindshare from, and newbie's cut their teeth under the tute
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Martinez
>
> Solaris Near Term Roadmap
> • Solaris 10
> – Next update CY2010 (“Update 9”)
> – Update focus:
> • New platform support
> • Orac
Having spent many years in a variety of companies small, medium and a
multinational. Having worked for a software developer company for over ten
years, the platforms supported when I joined was DEC OSF/1, IRIX, Linux, AIX,
HP-UX, Solaris and Windows workstations. As time passed DEC OSF/1, IRIX,
On 6/13/2010 12:41 AM, russell wrote:
Choochoo does have a point about usability and the home user. I started working
with Sun equipment in 1986, when Microsoft was just MSDOS and the early release
of Windows used to compete with GEM desktop. No in the PC reseller at the time
thought Windows w
> The relative strengths/weaknesses of the operating
> systems design make
> windows/ubuntu/osx generally better suited for
> primary end-user desktop
> interaction, while
> solaris/opensolaris/RHEL/debian/freebsd are generally
> better suited to power your servers behind the
> scenes.
Yes, indeed
Choochoo does have a point about usability and the home user. I started working
with Sun equipment in 1986, when Microsoft was just MSDOS and the early release
of Windows used to compete with GEM desktop. No in the PC reseller at the time
thought Windows would replace MSDOS it was too unstable.
33 matches
Mail list logo
