Solaris 7 and OpenBoot 3.x on Ultras
2007-12-25 10:03:00
My original question, with the responses (Thanks you!), is below.
The general opinion is that the person I've been talking to is
mistaken, and there is no particular problem with Solaris 7 on an
Ultra 1. On the contrary, some Admins have quite high uptimes.
BTW, a couple of you asked if it was 32 or 64 bit installation -- I
did a 32 bit install.
My question:
>Dear Gurus
>
>I have an Ultra 1 that I recently got back online after an apparent
>failure of the Network card. It turned out to be a software issue
>and has been fixed, at least for now, with a fresh install of
>Solaris 7 11/99.
>
>(See "SUMMARY: No network after software install")
>
>An experienced Sun admin who I'm familiar with has told me that the
>problem is going to keep recurring. He maintains that Solaris 7 is
>incompatible with the Ultra 1, and that it'll probably run for 6
>weeks or so and then fail again. And that the only way to keep the
>box stable is to use 2.6.
>
>System:
>Sun Ultra 1 SBus (UltraSPARC 143MHz), OpenBoot 3.11, 192 MB memory installed
>Solaris 7 11/99.
>
>So my questions are:
>
>- does anyone have a solid, stable installation of Solaris 7 on an
>Ultra1? (I really don't want to use 2.6 unless I HAVE to)
>
>- is this an OpenBoot issue?
>
>At 16:50 -0500 2000/02/23, Mark Sherman wrote:
>>Robert, this sounded familiar, and i found this, it may help:
>>
>>SRDB ID: 17780
>>
>>SYNOPSIS: watch-net-all Open Boot PROM test fails with "ethernet chip
>>initialization failed" message
>>
>>DETAIL DESCRIPTION:
>>
>>Machines with OBP 3.x such as the Ultra 1, 2, 5, 10, 30, 60, 450 and Ultra
>>Enterprise servers (3000, 3500, etc) may fail Open Boot PROM tests such
>>as watch-net, watch-net-all or test net.
>
>- what do I need to do to make Solaris 7 stable on my 32-bit Ultra1?
>
>Thanks all, and I'll summarize.
Heartfelt thanks to all who responded. The responses:
At 20:28 -0500 2000/05/03, John Weekley <weekleyj@foobarlabs.org> wrote:
>Better get a new sysadmin. I've got a few Ultra 1's that exhibit none of the
>problems you're experiencing.
>There are probably thousands of Ultra 1's with 7 loaded running happily.
>Blanket statements like "Solaris 7 is incompatible with Ultra 1's" signal that
>the sysadmin needs to do a bit more research.
> > - does anyone have a solid, stable installation of Solaris 7 on an
> > Ultra1? (I really don't want to use 2.6 unless I HAVE to)
>
>Yes, until I loaded 8 on it. (Ultra 1 200E (32 bit), 256 MB Ram, Creator 3D).
>It had a max uptime of over 5 months, limited my by own idiocy.
At 08:02 +0200 2000/05/04, Erik Lembke <Erik.Lembke@force.de> wrote:
>I have to Ultra 1 both on Solaris 7, and they work (nearly) perfectly.
>One of them crashes every two or three weeks, but this also happened when
>2.6 was installed.
>(I've used the 32Bit Installation)
At 09:39 +0300 2000/05/04, Lefteris Skapetis <skapetis@intranet.gr> wrote:
> > weeks or so and then fail again. And that the only way to keep the
> > box stable is to use 2.6.
>
>Sounds silly.
>
> > - does anyone have a solid, stable installation of Solaris 7 on an
> > Ultra1? (I really don't want to use 2.6 unless I HAVE to)
>
>Ultra 1, (UltraSPARC 143MHz) OBP 3.11.1 1997/12/03 15:55 POST
>3.10.6 1996/10/18 10:19
>Solaris 7 11/99 (64-bit mode), up & running for 89 days and counting.
>
>
> >
> > - is this an OpenBoot issue?
>
>did you enable the 64-bit mode during the upgrade? i don't think
>this is an issue though.
>i don't remember seeing anything weird on the documents about the
>32/64-bit mode
>during the upgrade.
At 09:07 +0200 2000/05/04, Birger Wathne wrote:
>I have had an Ultra 1 running Solaris 7 since the OS arrived. No problems,
>except my machine had a 167MHz CPU with the bug that makes it halt-able
>from user level code when running 64-bit kernel, so I had to override in
>some config file to force it to run the 64-bit kernel.
>
>I have just upgraded it to Solaris 8 without any problems. Solaris 8
>hasn't been up for more than 2 weeks, though.
At 09:17 -0400 2000/05/04, Mark Baldwin wrote:
>I'm not sure why this person thinks that Solaris 7 is incompatible with
>Ultra 1's, but I have to disagree. Not only does Sun validate this
>configuration, I have had a Ultra 1 running Solaris 7 for over a year
>with NO problems. In fact, I have Solaris 7 on my lowly Sparc 5 for
>over a year now with no problems. I am vigilant about applying
>recommended patches, but other than that, they are two of the most
>stable boxes I have.
>
>If you want to do a test-net or watch-net on any Ultra class machine
>should first do a setenv auto-boot? false. Then reset-all. Then run
>test-net or watch-net. Otherwise you may have problems with these
>openboot commands. This is well documented by the way. Be sure to set
>auto-boot? back to true when done.
>
>Hope this helps, Mark...
At 08:24 -0500 2000/05/04, Michael Kriss wrote:
>That's ridiculous! I've had two Ultra 1's running on 2.7 for almost
>a year now
>with no problems whatsoever. I don't know exactly what version of
>OBP I have on
>these two machines but I don't suspect that to be the problem either. Is your
>Ultra 1 greater than 200 Mhz? Are you running the 64 bit kernel or the 32 bit
>kernel?
At 14:24 -0400 2000/05/04, CIsenburg@ixl.com wrote:
>You aren't by chance connected to a Cisco Catalyst?
No, I'm not.
>
>I have noticed that some Solaris NICS don't negotiate speed when
>connected... can't say that it explains your reported chip failure, but the
>failed negotiation could be reported as such...I guess...
>
>The fix, if it is the case, is:
>ndd -set /dev/hme instance 0
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_autoneg_cap 0
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_100fdx_cap 1
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_100T4_cap 0
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_100hdx_cap 0
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_10fdx_cap 0
>ndd -set /dev/hme adv_10hdx_cap 0
>
>forces the negotiation with an infrastructure device...
Thanks again to everyone.
Best,
/Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Alexander
Senior Designer/Analyst/Admin
WWW Database Applications
"God does not subtract from one's allotted time
on Earth those hours spent flying." --Unknown
Comments
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
