[rescue] Solaris not stable till release 2.x?????? WAS::Re: [geeks] Rumors flying
sun.mail.list47 at oryx.us
Tue Dec 6 17:38:40 CST 2016
I'm kind of curious regarding comments of Solaris wasn't stable till release 2.?
, where the ? is the particular version you choose.
A bit of my background. I got started with Solaris during my time in the
military with Solaris 2.4, which, from my recollection, shipped with enough bugs
that in addition to the Solaris 2.4 CD, it shipped with a separate CD full of
patches. Solaris (SPARC) boxes were put into place to replace aging ATT 3B2
600G & 600GR systems.
For our needs, those 2.4 systems ran without issue, at least anything specific
to the OS, till they were upgraded to 2.5 then 2.5.1.
A few years down the road, I left the military, and found myself in a large oil
company with responsibility of administering 5-600 Sparc servers and
workstations, along with a handful of SGI Irix boxes and a one off AIX box that
ran some simulation I never really understood. Several floors of geologist,
each having a Sparc based workstation on their desk, along with a PC/desktop to
read Novell/Groupware email.
At that location I had a handful of small servers running Solaris 2.3, that took
several years to replace/upgrade. My request to upgrade the 2.3 boxes fell on
deaf ears as they continually ran without issue.
The first big problem I did encounter (same oil company) was on some big file
servers sharing out about 2 Tb of data, at least that (2 Tb) seemed large for
the late 1990's. The data was stored on Veritas foundation suite FS, and when
these boxes were upgraded from 2.5.1 to 2.6, no one had checked with Veritas to
check for compatibility.
It turns out that there were big kernel changes between 2.5.1 and 2.6. But the
problem was really a human one vs either a problem with Solaris or Veritas.
There has been a few Solaris releases where I felt Sun went Mac OS X on us, AKA,
the new release took away more features and support then providing new stuff.
But, from 2.3 to present, baring hardware problems, Solaris has generally proven
itself to be rock solid.
I realize that there are numerous issues, like when Solaris 2.0 came out and
took away the BSD rc start up scripts to give us the Sys V scripts. And similar
things happened with Solaris 10 with SMF, although the Sys V start up scripts
are still with us but depreciated. These were unpopular decisions.
Closing out by repeating my original question, I'm curious regarding comments
of Solaris wasn't stable till release 2.? , where the ? is the particular
version you choose. What was so broken that you didn't consider the Solaris
stable at that point?
On 12/ 6/16 04:58 PM, Stefan Skoglund (lokal anvC$ndare) wrote:
>> sparky:~$ uname -a
>> SunOS sparky 5.5.1 Generic_103640-27 sun4c sparc SUNW,Sun_4_75
>> sparky:~$ uptime
>> 4:36pm up 77 day(s), 23:41, 1 user, load average: 0.06, 0.02, 0.02
>> Gotta love that old 4c iron.
> Yes, i remember. 2.5.1 was the first one which was good enough if it
> wasn't awfully important to run SunOS 2.x for some reason or another.
> The workstations had a habit of hanging once in a month or so.
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
More information about the rescue