Very Computer

by **Harry Boswel** » Sun, 13 Mar 2005 08:28:10

I'm moving from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 9 on my E4500 - clean install, not an
upgrade. It has 2 9GB drives in Unipacks - /dev/dsk/c0t0d0 and
/dev/dsk/c2t0d0. But when suninstall detects the devices to create the root
filesystem, it reports them as c1t0d0 and c3t0s0. Is this just an anomaly
of the installer? Or new device definitions in Solaris 9? Should I be
concerned about this?

Thanks,
Harry Boswell

by **Darren Dunha** » Wed, 16 Mar 2005 03:59:14

> I'm moving from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 9 on my E4500 - clean install, not an
> upgrade. It has 2 9GB drives in Unipacks - /dev/dsk/c0t0d0 and
> /dev/dsk/c2t0d0. But when suninstall detects the devices to create the root
> filesystem, it reports them as c1t0d0 and c3t0s0. Is this just an anomaly
> of the installer? Or new device definitions in Solaris 9? Should I be
> concerned about this?

Controller assignment is based both upon probe order of the hardware,
and historical assignments. Solaris tries very hard to not change any
existing numbers just because you've added or removed hardware.

The installer is probably not using any of the history of the existing
system (/dev/cfg, /etc/path_to_inst). So the probe order is the only
determinant.

No, it's nothing I would worry about.

--

Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

by **Harry** » Wed, 16 Mar 2005 06:47:42

>> I'm moving from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 9 on my E4500 - clean install, not an
>> upgrade. It has 2 9GB drives in Unipacks - /dev/dsk/c0t0d0 and
>> /dev/dsk/c2t0d0. But when suninstall detects the devices to create the root
>> filesystem, it reports them as c1t0d0 and c3t0s0. Is this just an anomaly
>> of the installer? Or new device definitions in Solaris 9? Should I be
>> concerned about this?

>Controller assignment is based both upon probe order of the hardware,
>and historical assignments. Solaris tries very hard to not change any
>existing numbers just because you've added or removed hardware.

>The installer is probably not using any of the history of the existing
>system (/dev/cfg, /etc/path_to_inst). So the probe order is the only
>determinant.

>No, it's nothing I would worry about.

Thanks for the response. I watched it all weekend, and decided it was ok to
let it go.

I got an unexpected (pleasant) surprise when I installed Raind Manager
6.22.1. I had decided against upgraded RM, since I was still running RM6,
and would have to upgrade to 6.1, and then 6.22, so I did a clean install of
Solaris 9, and then installed RM. But RM 6.22 detected the existing LUN
assignments anyway.

Harry

by **Darren Dunha** » Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:42:46

> I got an unexpected (pleasant) surprise when I installed Raind Manager
> 6.22.1. I had decided against upgraded RM, since I was still running RM6,
> and would have to upgrade to 6.1, and then 6.22, so I did a clean install of
> Solaris 9, and then installed RM. But RM 6.22 detected the existing LUN
> assignments anyway.

I'm not certain what you're talking about.

I'd expect any installation of RM to populate some extra luns into the
sd.conf file. Is that what you're talking about?

What 'assignments' were you worried wouldn't be detected?

--

Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

by **Harry** » Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:11:36

>> I got an unexpected (pleasant) surprise when I installed Raind Manager
>> 6.22.1. I had decided against upgraded RM, since I was still running RM6,
>> and would have to upgrade to 6.1, and then 6.22, so I did a clean install of
>> Solaris 9, and then installed RM. But RM 6.22 detected the existing LUN
>> assignments anyway.

>I'm not certain what you're talking about.

>I'd expect any installation of RM to populate some extra luns into the
>sd.conf file. Is that what you're talking about?

>What 'assignments' were you worried wouldn't be detected?

Since this was a clean install of the OS, I didn't expect to find anything
defined on the A1000s - I expected to have to define them all fresh.

Harry

by **Darren Dunha** » Fri, 18 Mar 2005 03:33:27

>>> I got an unexpected (pleasant) surprise when I installed Raind Manager
>>> 6.22.1. I had decided against upgraded RM, since I was still running RM6,
>>> and would have to upgrade to 6.1, and then 6.22, so I did a clean install of
>>> Solaris 9, and then installed RM. But RM 6.22 detected the existing LUN
>>> assignments anyway.

>>I'm not certain what you're talking about.

>>I'd expect any installation of RM to populate some extra luns into the
>>sd.conf file. Is that what you're talking about?

>>What 'assignments' were you worried wouldn't be detected?
> Since this was a clean install of the OS, I didn't expect to find anything
> defined on the A1000s - I expected to have to define them all fresh.

The A1000 is a hardware RAID device. The LUN configuration and the data
within them are stored on the hardware.

The RAID Manager software is just the utility for communicating with the
device for configuration, for load-balancing/failover if you have
multiple controllers, and for managing the hardware (battery status,
cache performance, failure notification).

--

Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

Very Computer

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection

Solaris 9 install: device detection