2.6 FCS -> 2.6 5/98 upgrade fails because /usr moved to /usr:2.6

2.6 FCS -> 2.6 5/98 upgrade fails because /usr moved to /usr:2.6

Post by Vincent Cojo » Wed, 01 Dec 1999 04:00:00

Tonight I attempted to upgrade a 2.6 FCS U1/170E to 2.6 5/98 and ran into
a problem. I'd like to know if my conclusion about the problem I had is
correct before I tried to upgrade once again. Here's the story:

        In order to know if the 2.6 -> 2.6 5/98 would work fine, I first
tried it on the old 9GB (holding /, /usr, /var, /usr/local, /opt) - The
machine was upgraded last week to a 18GB, which meant I could simply
remove the 18gb and use the 9gb to test the upgrade (nothing had changed
since the machine went 9gb -> 18gb so both disks' contents was identical).
That upgrade test went fine and less than 5 files were saved out by the
upgrade with a ":2.6" extension.

        Then I re-inserted the 18gb disk and re-booted from the cdrom and
proceeded to the very same questions that I had answered before ( for the
test). The upgrad started and around the end of the upgrade process, the
console started to display messages about FS "/a" (c0t0d0s0) being full.
The 256mb "/" (mounted as /a) had become full. After a reboot in order to
get the machine back in working order, I discovered that the solaris
upgrade process had created a "/usr" in the "/" slice, filling it up as it
tried to upgrade the OS.

In short, when the upgrade started, it had:

/cdrom          (c0t6d0s*)
/a              (c0t0d0s0)
/a/var          (c0t0d0s3)
/a/usr          (c0t0d0s4)
/a/usr/opt      (c0t0d0s5)
/a/usr/local    (c0t0d0s6)

then, when it saved the modified files (*:2.6) it became:
/cdrom          (c0t6d0s*)
/a              (c0t0d0s0)
/a/var          (c0t0d0s3)
/a/usr:2.6      (c0t0d0s4)
/a/usr/opt      (c0t0d0s5) stale mount since /usr was renamed.
/a/usr/local    (c0t0d0s6) stale mount since /usr was renamed.

So when the upgrade dumped the packages, it dumped them in c0t0d0s0 under
a new /usr directory instead of dumping them under c0t0d0s4.
I fixed this by restoring / and /var (not /usr since it had been spared)
from tape.

** My temporary conclusion:

When we upgraded from 9gb to 18gb, the "/usr" directory on c0t0d0s0 might
have been created with wrong permissions or the "root" of the c0t0d0s4
slice (/usr) might have had something different than root:sys with 0775.
It's likely that one or the other might have been root:root with 0755.
The upgrade process realized that and renamed it before going on. This
explains when the test upgrade on the 9gb went fine while the final
upgrade on the 18gb failed. Does anyone agree with this? I'd like to know
before the upgrade is attempted once again.

PS: Please CC me by email if you, thank you.. :)

Vincent S. Cojot, Computer Engineering. STEP project. _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Comite Micro-Informatique. _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,.
Linux Xview/OpenLook resources page _.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'

They cannot scare me with their empty spaces
Between stars - on stars where no human race is
I have it in me so much nearer home
To scare myself with my own desert places.       - Robert Frost


1. Patched 2.6 3/98 and 2.6 5/98 the same?

I'm pretty confident they're the same, but I'd like to get input from

Is there any difference between a well patched system that was jumped
with Solaris 2.6 3/98 and a well patched system that was jumped with
Solaris 2.6 5/98?

I know 5/98 had better PCI support, but can that improved support be
obtained for 3/98 by just patching it?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

2. CD-RW in Linux

3. /usr undersized for 2.5.1-> 2.6 upgrade

4. auth/rcp: what does it mean?

5. dtmail Sol.2.6 fails compared to /bin/mail & /usr/ucb/mail (smartuucp)

6. Installing problems with X.4.1.0 with -lz option

7. Upgrade from Solaris 2.6 with Volume Manager 2.6 to Solaris 8 with Volume Manager 3.2

8. Multitech MT2834ZDX Dialer??? (sorry)

9. 2.5.1 -> 2.6 & DiskSuite [Was: Solaris 2.6 & Solstice DiskSuite 4.0]

10. PCI UltraSCSI card REQUIRES Sol 2.6 HW 5/98 (not 3/98) ?

11. Solaris 2.6 3/98 vs 5/98?

12. Differences between Solaris 2.6 March 98 and May 98

13. 2.6patched upgrade to 2.6 05/98 ?