HELP!!! solaris 9 install on new v20z with 73GB drives -- no ITU for new disk support -- HELP!!!
HW: sun V20Z server, brand new, w/ qty 2 of sun-supplied 73GB disks.
SW : solaris 9 (packaged CD set came with server above).
issue:
the supplied installation media (solaris 9 09/04) does not support the supplied disk drives. solaris 9 installer (actually fdisk) shows 18GB when drives are 73GB.
the yellow paper insert supplied with the new v20z notes that the supplied OS may not support the "next generation" drives, and says to go and get a "patch":
" The Solaris Operating System (OS) may not recognize the full capacity of the new HDDs. Only part of the HDD is usable by the commands fdisk or format on the Solaris OS on x86. The Solaris OS may also simply fail to install on the HDD.
<<snip>> (disk part number and firmware level info)
To download the patch for this issue, visit the following URL:
<a href="http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/downloads.html" target="_blank">http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/downloads.html</a&g t; "
problem:
it's impossible to "patch" the OS when the OS is not yet installed. no solaris 9-compatible ITU floppy disk image avaliable at link above.
ps, as a side note:
same problem exists in solaris 10, however an ITU floppy disk image DOES exist:
<a href="http://supportforum.sun.com/sunos/index.php?t=msg&th=3382" target="_blank"> http://supportforum.sun.com/sunos/index.php?t=msg&th=338 2</a>
so:
how can one install solaris 9 on a new v20z equipped with qty 2 73GB drives, when no ITU exists for support of the "next generation" disk drives?
thanks
jds
dear SUN PEOPLE:
please ship SW which is compatible with the HW, or at least include the necessary ITU's on FLOPPY. it's obvious you knew about the problem, hence the yellow insert. but have the foresight to recognize the difficulty of patching a not-yet-installed system, especially when one is trying to install it in a client's data center and it's not exactly convenient to get a windows PC, "dd" a disk image to a floppy, and so on. i wasted an entire afteroon of MY TIME AND MY MONEY on this problem -- how can i bill my client for my services when i can't even get the OS to install? i call SUN support -- "we'll get back to you in 1 to 8 hours". great; these are not hours that i can afford. i drove 2.5 hrs to the client's data center to set this machine up, which i expected would take 3-4 hours max -- and now, to keep from having to make the same trip yet again, i'm stuck here until this machine can be remotely administered. DO BETTER!!! we are loyal customers, i have had my clients on sun since SunOS 4.1.2 (remember that?) on Sparc 490's and SparcStation 1's (remember those?) -- but this kind of "ooops" stuff really tweaks me.
[2917 byte] By [
jds] at [2007-11-25 22:55:20]
# 1
JDS,
You perhaps don't realize:THIS FORUM ISN"T SUN TECHSUPPORT.
I might suggest you will get more solutions if you deal directly with the reseller or Sun.
(If you purchased from a reseller, they definitely didn't serve you very well.)
The response from Sun techsupport is standard for anyone that has only warranty coverage. They didn't single you out for that estimate of response speed. My own experience is that the callback occurs much quicker.The thing is, there's no contractual obligation for Sun to answer your question immediately:
<a href="http://www.sun.com/service/support/warranty/entrylevelservers.html" target="_blank"> http://www.sun.com/service/support/warranty/entrylevelserver s.html</a>
These forums are hosted so that the <i>end-users</i> can `talk` to each other, no more, no less.
# 2
<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText"><b>rukbat wrote on Sat, 20 August 2005 07:06</b></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
You perhaps don't realize:THIS FORUM ISN"T SUN TECHSUPPORT.
</td></tr></table>
yes, i fully realize that. i was hoping that someone here had encountered and solved this problem before i came across it.
<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText"><b>rukbat wrote on Sat, 20 August 2005 07:06</b></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
I might suggest you will get more solutions if you deal directly with the reseller or Sun.
</td></tr></table>
at the time i posted the above, i had already made a call to sun support and had gotten assigned a case number. however, simply sitting on my thumb for 1-8 hours didn't seem like a good idea, so i started this thread.
<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText"><b>rukbat wrote on Sat, 20 August 2005 07:06</b></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
(If you purchased from a reseller, they definitely didn't serve you very well.)
</td></tr></table>
i purchased the unit online from SunStore. you were saying?
<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText"><b>rukbat wrote on Sat, 20 August 2005 07:06</b></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
The response from Sun techsupport is standard for anyone that has only warranty coverage. They didn't single you out for that estimate of response speed. My own experience is that the callback occurs much quicker.The thing is, there's no contractual obligation for Sun to answer your question immediately: <snip>
</td></tr></table>
thank you for your attempt to educate me on what exactly sun's responsibilites are once they have shipped the product. here is the point i was trying to get across:
i am not trying to install sun solaris on some junky x86 hardware.
i am not trying to install some junky linux on sun hardware.
i am trying to install sun solaris on sun hardware -- in fact, the very same solaris THAT CAME NEW IN THE BOX WITH THE NEW SERVER. the combination doesn't work, and i'm losing money waiting for a solution. i have installed solaris x86 on generic beige boxen from compaq, dell, and HP, and in those cases i expected that there would be some hunting for the correct drivers etc. and, i have installed linux on beige boxen and in those cases i expected that there would be some hunting for drivers etc. HOWEVER, in no case did i expect that sun would package hardware and software together which was incompatible.
<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td class="SmallText"><b>rukbat wrote on Sat, 20 August 2005 07:06</b></td></tr><tr><td class="quote">
These forums are hosted so that the <i>end-users</i> can `talk` to each other, no more, no less.
</td></tr></table>
i am an end user. i use and admin solaris in dozens of places, including for my email/web server at home. this message comes to you routed by a solaris x86 box runing ipfilter, an open source project-turned sun product which i have contributed to.so please don't lecture me on what an <i>end user</i> is.
it is now 8:40AM eastern, approximately 18 hours after i phoned sun, got a case number, and was told 1-8 hours until i would be phoned. STILL NO CALL BACK.
jds
jds at 2007-7-5 17:10:42 >
# 3
ISSUE Installation issues with new 73GB, 146GB, and 300GB drives
============================================================ =========
The newer drives report a geometry which is not correctly supported by
the existing sd driver. A patch has been generated to resolve this issue
(see CR# 6249580 for more details):
1). Verify that the required sd driver patch is installed:
Solaris 10 - 119375-03
Solaris 9 - 119443-01
Solaris 8 - 109644-11
Solaris 7 - 110328-03
ITUs:
Solaris 10 - 119376-02
Solaris 9 - 119873-01
Solaris 8 - 119872-01
Solaris 7 - 110329-03
2). Use fdisk -G to inspect the geometry reported by the drive.
The newer drives should report 255 heads and either 63, 126, or 189
sectors. If you see these values then you disk label has been generated
correctly and format should report the full capicity of the disk.
If the disk has an existing label then the geometry that that geometry
is reported and will result in the values used by format. If these
values are in error, then it will be necessary to overwrite the existing
label and rerun fdisk to recreate it correctly.
Examples:
# fdisk -G /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0p0
* Physical geometry for device /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0p0
* PCYLNCYLACYLBCYLNHEAD NSECT SECSIZ
892489240025563512
^^^^=== CORRECT
# fdisk -G /dev/rdsk/c1t1d0p0
* Physical geometry for device /dev/rdsk/c1t1d0p0
* PCYLNCYLACYLBCYLNHEAD NSECT SECSIZ
2307623076002809512
^^^^=== INCORRECT
It is worth noting that systems coming from manufacturing are arriving
with an existing incorrect label on the disk. This results in the
installer indicating a smaller drive than physically installed. If this
is detected the label should be removed prior to continuing with the
Solaris installation.
More information is available in the following documents:
Formatted Capacity of Some Disks With Pre-Installed Solaris x86 May Be
Incorrect
Document ID: 101826Jul 28, 2005PUBLICSun Alert Notifications
The Full Size of a Large Disk May Not be Usable by fdisk(1M) or
format(1M) on a Solaris x86 System (formerly Document ID: 57679)
Document ID: 101599Jul 13, 2005PUBLICSun Alert Notifications
jds at 2007-7-5 17:10:42 >
# 4
The above ITU's should work for your problem!
seanf at 2007-7-5 17:10:42 >
# 5
I had the same problem (Except I bought two of them!!!). I agree that it is appauling that the OS in the box won't boot the system. Furthermore, the support staff which I spoke to didn't have any experience with these boxes and was essentially learning on the job from us.
That aside,
A workaround (in case you haven't solved the problem) is to set up AND patch an install server then boot the V20Z over the network. Yes, the BGE network card will boot the system over the net.
This worked for us, I hope you resolved the issue.
