orig: Problem: After a supposedly successful installation of Solaris 2.1 on
orig: Sparc 10, error messages are printed saying that le0 is not found and
orig: that the specified IP address for this host appears to be unavailable.
orig:
orig: Configuration:
orig: Sparc 10 model 41, 32M, 424M disk, cd
orig: Net connection via audio/aui cable -> transceiver -> 10baseT hub
orig: Solaris 2.1 cdrom
orig:
orig: Description:
orig: I have so far been unsuccessful at installing Solaris 2.1 on a Sparc
orig: 10. I am relying on the Solaris 2.0 Installation Guide for written
orig: assistance in the process; I've seen no 2.1 docs.
orig:
orig: After specifying no NIS/NIS+ client, choosing the custom install, and
orig: specifying all bundles for installation, the process appears to
orig: proceed as expected.
orig:
orig: During the installation, the Sparc 10 responds to pings from other
orig: hosts in our network. No packets are dropped.
orig:
orig: When the installation has completed and the machine has rebooted, it
orig: fails to find the le0 interface on boot and hangs. An error message
orig: also explains that the specified IP address appears to be unavailable.
orig:
orig: If this is enough information for anyone to help me decipher what the
orig: problem is and get it corrected, I would be very grateful for the help
orig: and will gladly summarize.
I did indeed get an answer which has led to a successful installation
and boot. The reply elucidating the nature of the problem follows.
Basically, all 4-5 installations I tried yesterday, were variations of
this symptom. An additional useful bit of info said that on the
backplate of the Sparc10 box, TP stands for twisted-pair. So, the
recommendation was made to bypass the audio/AUI adaptor and transceiver
and go straight to the hub. The host naming problem had interfered
with this, yesterday, so we will try it today. Thank you lucky people
who have braved the unknown territory of Solaris 2.1 installations on
Sparc10's for providing help with this.
I need to vent just a little: After all the promo shows and conversion
tools presaging the transition from 4.1.X to 2.X, wouldn't it have
proceeded better if the bugs didn't crop up during installation? And,
how about documentation? 'Nuf said. I am quite excited about this
box.
Thanks,
UNTIL 29 JANUARY 1993:
sid cowles voice: +1-415-476-1582
internet: uucp:
scowles@ckm.ucsf.gov
scowles@llnl.gov {backbone}!lll-winken!humpty!scowles
AFTER 29 JANUARY 1993:
sid cowles voice: not yet
internet: uucp:
scowles@camis.stanford.edu
scowles@llnl.gov {backbone}!lll-winken!humpty!scowles
----- Begin Included Message -----
>From don@doug.med.utah.edu Thu Jan 28 06:41:58 1993
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 07:48:03 MST
We saw this just last week. It turns out that there is a bug if you use
a fully qualified hostname. i.e. it cuts things off at 9 chars. I don't
know if this is your problem but we changed the host name to just the
portion prior to the first . and all went well. I beleive thare is a
patch but we were just playing with 2.1 and didn't go to the effert
needed to get it.
-don
----- End Included Message -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:07:26 CDT