Hello,

I got an Solaris 8 5/03 installation of Sun on a v480 with the
lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to
reinstall this box and the default installation of Solaris 8 5/03
allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This
should not a problem, but the v480 is mounted in a rack and the cables
and patch panels are labeled as well as the documentation is written
and released.

Do I really have to modify the /etc/path_to_inst by hand to get the
lower to be ce0 or is there another way?

Thanks in advance for all hint.

Oliver

In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
> Hello,

> I got an Solaris 8 5/03 installation of Sun on a v480 with the
> lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to
> reinstall this box and the default installation of Solaris 8 5/03
> allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This
> should not a problem, but the v480 is mounted in a rack and the cables
> and patch panels are labeled as well as the documentation is written
> and released.

> Do I really have to modify the /etc/path_to_inst by hand to get the
> lower to be ce0 or is there another way?

Pretty much. The system normally numbers interfaces like that
sequentially in the order that they are "seen". If mulitple interfaces
are seen during a single reconfiguration, then their order is the same
as the "probe order" on the slots. This should always be the same for a
particular model and a particular OS.

So one way is to remove the upper card and reinstall, then put the card
back in and reconfigure. However if the labeling of the cables is a
problem, I'm guessing you don't want to be fiddling with the cards,
either.

Swapping the instance numbers in /etc/path_to_inst would definitely be
easier.

--
Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com
Unix System Administrator Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

Darren Dunham <ddunham@redwood.taos.com> probably said:
>In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
>> lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to

>> allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This

>So one way is to remove the upper card and reinstall, then put the card
>back in and reconfigure. However if the labeling of the cables is a
>problem, I'm guessing you don't want to be fiddling with the cards,
>either.

They're not cards, the V480 has two onboard (built in) ce interfaces.

P.

--
pir

In comp.unix.solaris Peter Radcliffe <30$12$f3i99le@pir.net> wrote:
> Darren Dunham <ddunham@redwood.taos.com> probably said:
>>In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
>>> lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to

>>> allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This

>>So one way is to remove the upper card and reinstall, then put the card
>>back in and reconfigure. However if the labeling of the cables is a
>>problem, I'm guessing you don't want to be fiddling with the cards,
>>either.

> They're not cards, the V480 has two onboard (built in) ce interfaces.

Then I'm at a loss for how the original ordering came about. Perhaps a
different OS used a different probe order?

--
Darren Dunham ddunham@taos.com
Unix System Administrator Taos - The SysAdmin Company
Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area
< This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:30:53 GMT in <xL7vb.11417$V%3.4501@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com >,
Darren Dunham said something similar to:
: In comp.unix.solaris Peter Radcliffe <30$12$f3i99le@pir.net> wrote:
: > Darren Dunham <ddunham@redwood.taos.com> probably said:
: >>In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
: >>> lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to
:
: >>> allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This
:
: >>So one way is to remove the upper card and reinstall, then put the card
: >>back in and reconfigure. However if the labeling of the cables is a
: >>problem, I'm guessing you don't want to be fiddling with the cards,
: >>either.
:
: > They're not cards, the V480 has two onboard (built in) ce interfaces.
:
: Then I'm at a loss for how the original ordering came about. Perhaps a
: different OS used a different probe order?

Solaris 8 02/02 uses the upper as ce1 and the lower as ce0 (this is also
how the interfaces are marked on the back of the system). The real question
is why the OP is running a HW release of Solaris 8 that's not intended
for this system - the v480s were supported in 02/02.

Mike Delaney <mdelan@computer.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbrqtfq.2eh2.mdelan@shell.lusars.net>...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:30:53 GMT in <xL7vb.11417$V%3.4501@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com >,
> Darren Dunham said something similar to:
> : In comp.unix.solaris Peter Radcliffe <30$12$f3i99le@pir.net> wrote:
> : > Darren Dunham <ddunham@redwood.taos.com> probably said:
> : >>In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
> : >>> lower onboard ce interface (pci@9,7) to be ce0, but I have to
>
> : >>> allways makes the upper onboard ce interface (pci@9,6) to be ce0. This
>
> : >>So one way is to remove the upper card and reinstall, then put the card
> : >>back in and reconfigure. However if the labeling of the cables is a
> : >>problem, I'm guessing you don't want to be fiddling with the cards,
> : >>either.
>
> : > They're not cards, the V480 has two onboard (built in) ce interfaces.
> :
> : Then I'm at a loss for how the original ordering came about. Perhaps a
> : different OS used a different probe order?
>
> Solaris 8 02/02 uses the upper as ce1 and the lower as ce0 (this is also
> how the interfaces are marked on the back of the system). The real question
> is why the OP is running a HW release of Solaris 8 that's not intended
> for this system - the v480s were supported in 02/02.

The Solaris 8 5/03 was the delivery of Sun explicitely for this
machine and the v880 we also have beside the v480s. Both are not
mentioned on the media kit, but others. The Sun technician read the
text on the DVD, called a colleague and told us, it's ok. We have to
trust him. Do we?

Concerning the removal of a board for changing the naming order, this
is not possible, because I was talking about onboard interfaces.

We experienced, that the lower (rear view) ce was named ce1 and the
upper ce0 by this special OS release. The Sun technician told me, I
have to modify the path_to_inst. This seems to be the ways for the
strang OS release.

In comp.unix.solaris OFuchs <Oliver.Fuchs@siemens.com> wrote:
> The Solaris 8 5/03 was the delivery of Sun explicitely for this
> machine and the v880 we also have beside the v480s. Both are not
> mentioned on the media kit, but others. The Sun technician read the
> text on the DVD, called a colleague and told us, it's ok. We have to
> trust him. Do we?

Solaris 8 5/03 will work on the V480 and V880, however it is strongly
recommended by Sun that you use Solaris 8 2/02.

All Solaris 8 versions beyond 2/02 are Hardware releases, and are only
intended for use machines where they are required (such as the
V210/V240/V440). You can find out correct version to use in the Sun
System Handbook at http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/ Only systems
which list versions > 2/02 require the new versions - Solaris 8 2/02 should
be used on all other systems where possible.

Or even better, just use Solaris 9!

Scott