SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 11:07 AM

We are trying to jumpstart a new V240 server and it's taking 3 days
for it to complete. Can anyone suggest what to look for to resolve
this issue?

Using Solaris 5/03 distribution. I'm thinking it has to do with NFS
but can't say for sure.

Thank you,

R. Gutierrez
LLNL

#2 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 11:07 AM

In article <633e50bf.0309240823.1a669e4b@posting.google.com >,
R. Gutierrez <gutierrez6@llnl.gov> wrote:
>We are trying to jumpstart a new V240 server and it's taking 3 days
>for it to complete. Can anyone suggest what to look for to resolve
>this issue?

If connecting to a switch which sets duplex incorrectly, the results
matches what you describe.

>Using Solaris 5/03 distribution. I'm thinking it has to do with NFS
>but can't say for sure.

I'd get hold of 8/03 first (wealth of improvements), but it should work
using 5/03 also.
Its a BIT problematic to force duplex in /etc or other means during the
jumpstart process, so try to setting switch ports to 100MB half duplex.

/wfr
Fredrik

--
Fredrik Lundholm
dol @ ce.chalmers.se

#3 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 11:07 AM

On 24 Sep 2003 09:23:02 -0700, gutierrez6@llnl.gov (R. Gutierrez) wrote:
>We are trying to jumpstart a new V240 server and it's taking 3 days
>for it to complete. Can anyone suggest what to look for to resolve
>this issue?
>
>Using Solaris 5/03 distribution. I'm thinking it has to do with NFS
>but can't say for sure.

I've noticed that with my bge* and ce* devices, auto-negotiation actually works.
In fact, we've found things don't work so great when we force 100/Full. This
has been with Cisco Catalysts, so YMMV.

Jason Fortezzo
usenet at mechanicalism dot net

#4 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 11:07 AM

dol@ce.chalmers.se (Fredrik Lundholm) wrote in message news:<bksne8$gjq$1@eol.dd.chalmers.se>...
> In article <633e50bf.0309240823.1a669e4b@posting.google.com >,
> R. Gutierrez <gutierrez6@llnl.gov> wrote:
> >We are trying to jumpstart a new V240 server and it's taking 3 days
> >for it to complete. Can anyone suggest what to look for to resolve
> >this issue?
>
> If connecting to a switch which sets duplex incorrectly, the results
> matches what you describe.
>
> >Using Solaris 5/03 distribution. I'm thinking it has to do with NFS
> >but can't say for sure.
>
> I'd get hold of 8/03 first (wealth of improvements), but it should work
> using 5/03 also.
> Its a BIT problematic to force duplex in /etc or other means during the
> jumpstart process, so try to setting switch ports to 100MB half duplex.
>
> /wfr
> Fredrik

Thank you for the response. As it turns out the problem was caused by
the server being unable to use DNS while running the jumpstart. Oddly
enough none of the other servers we jumpstart have this issue.

Changing the sysidcfg entry to name_service=none solved the problem.
Doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling though.

R. Gutierrez

#5 (**permalink**) 01-16-2008, 11:08 AM

In comp.sys.sun.admin Jason Fortezzo <read@my.sig> wrote:
> I've noticed that with my bge* and ce* devices, auto-negotiation actually works.
> In fact, we've found things don't work so great when we force 100/Full. This
> has been with Cisco Catalysts, so YMMV.

Using autonegotiate at both ends of the link has been the recommendation
from both Sun and Cisco (as well as most other vendors) for many years.

From Sun:
http://sunsolve.sun.com/pub-cgi/retr...nfodoc%2F70282
"Sun's[TM] recommendation is to leave ethernet auto-negotiation ON (default
enabled) when connecting Solaris 100Mb an 1000Mb ethernet NICs to
Switches/Hubs that are compliant with IEEE 802.3 for the following reasons"

From Cisco :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk38...80094781.shtml
"Our current recommendation is to leave auto-negotiation on for those
devices compliant with 802.3u"

Scott.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

V240 Jumpstart Extremely Slow