SUMMARY: bad patches

From: Chuck <>
Date: Sat Mar 13 2004 - 11:35:13 EST
Albert White ( hit the nail right on the head.
Sun has a very detailed "System Test and Performance Regression Test
cycle".  He referred me to this site: 
Nonetheless a few problems get through or I would not be
writing this in the first place.  BTW, the High IO problem
that got me to posting to sun-managers has been followed up
by Eric Paul below.  In a nutshell, Veritas writes stats
directly into kernel space; Solaris changed a kernel
structure and the space written to has the IO counters.  See
info from his follow up below.

ps: Thanks to all the others (too many to list) who wrote :-)
Subject: RE: SUMMARY: High IO problem after installing 8_Recommended 
From: Eric Paul <>  Add to Address Book 
Subject: RE: SUMMARY: High IO problem after installing 8_Recommended 
I also experienced this problem (although I didn't realize
it until I read this summary this morning.)  I just got off
the phone with Sun and received the following information:
Yes, it is a known bug with 108528-29 and Veritas Foundation
Suite.  (Someone decided to change the format of a data
structure, and add new stats to the MIDDLE instead of the
END, so Veritas writes it's I/O performance data directly to
Kernel-space and now those locations are wrong, so it looks
to the Kernel like there are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF WRITES
when in fact there are not.)  Sun assures me this problem is
completely cosmetic and there is no reason to panic.  

My orig. message:
>Hello all,
>Based on Randy's summary "High IO problem after in-
>stalling 8_Recommended", I am wondering about Solaris
>patch testing.  Is any done?  Just recently, I had a
>problem with 109320-09 (SunOS 5.8: LP Patch).  It was part
>of the 8_Recommended patch set.  After installing, when
>printing to print servers, only a few pages of a job come
>out; then the job restarts from the beginning.  It does it
>over and over.  It only does this on print servers that
>use the LPR protocol.  This patch is still part of the 
>8_Recommended set.  I ended up backing out 109320-09 and
>using 109320-08 as 09 did not seem to fix anything related
>to what I was doing. 

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
sunmanagers mailing list
Received on Sat Mar 13 11:43:55 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:43:30 EST