Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!! - Solaris

This is a discussion on Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!! - Solaris ; Daniel Rock wrote: > > [snip] > With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to > refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot" instead > of "init 6". I'm wondering why ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

  1. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    Daniel Rock wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    > With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to
    > refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot" instead
    > of "init 6". I'm wondering why it is still mentioned in the Sun documentation
    > on a few locations (... restart with 'reboot -- -r' ...)


    O.k., dumb question time (with apologies to the local UN*X gurus -
    obviously I'm crossing-over from another world)...

    Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Coming soon:
    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page

  2. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Daniel Rock wrote:
    >
    >>[snip]
    >>With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to
    >>refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot" instead
    >>of "init 6". I'm wondering why it is still mentioned in the Sun documentation
    >>on a few locations (... restart with 'reboot -- -r' ...)

    >
    >
    > O.k., dumb question time (with apologies to the local UN*X gurus -
    > obviously I'm crossing-over from another world)...
    >
    > Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    > to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    > "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?
    >

    It would break backwards compatibility - some scripts might call 'reboot'.

    Sun tend to keep around a lot of old commands for a long time. It might
    not suite everyone, but it does mean older software generally runs with
    no problems.

    --
    Dave K

    http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/

    Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
    always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)

  3. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    Dave wrote:
    > David J Dachtera wrote:
    >
    >> Daniel Rock wrote:
    >>
    >>> [snip]
    >>> With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to
    >>> refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot"
    >>> instead
    >>> of "init 6". I'm wondering why it is still mentioned in the Sun
    >>> documentation
    >>> on a few locations (... restart with 'reboot -- -r' ...)

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> O.k., dumb question time (with apologies to the local UN*X gurus -
    >> obviously I'm crossing-over from another world)...
    >>
    >> Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    >> to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    >> "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?


    I perhaps should have explained myself better. As soon as you do that,
    the behavior of reboot has changed. Any script that may have relied on
    it behaving in one way will now be broken. Admittedly 99% of the time it
    would not matter. But there will always be the 1% that might rely on it
    behaving in a particular way.

    poweroff is another command, that is best replaced by init 5 in *most*
    circumstances. For a single user workstation, it is quite likely that
    poweroff will be fine and will just execute faster. It depends on what
    services you have running.

    --
    Dave K

    http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/

    Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
    always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)

  4. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    In article <43B88441.974A774D@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > Daniel Rock wrote:
    >>
    >> [snip]
    >> With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to
    >> refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot" instead
    >> of "init 6". I'm wondering why it is still mentioned in the Sun documentation
    >> on a few locations (... restart with 'reboot -- -r' ...)

    >
    > Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    > to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    > "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?


    Well, it's not generally a real good idea to touch vendor-supplied
    binaries. (Be it for OpenVMS, Solaris, Linux, Windows, or otherwise.)

    Main issue is with compatibility with existing tools *AND* with future tools.

    That's just a Pandora's Box that you *really* don't want to open unless
    you're willing to support yourself and solve any problems without
    calling Sun, even if you don't have access to source for all the tools.

    If I was in a really desperate situation, and where I didn't have vendor
    support for either the OS or application, and if my job was on the line
    for making things work, I might go that route (but consider finding new
    employment elsewhere in the meantime).

    Otherwise, I wouldn't even think of it.

    Make tools conform to the provided OS vendor's setup, instead of the
    other way around.

    -Dan

  5. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    I would suggest to :

    1. Create a 'reboot' alias and put it in /etc/profile
    2. or Create an administrative binary path like "/usr/local/admin/sbin"
    and put it before any other system paths

    Dan Foster wrote:
    > In article <43B88441.974A774D@comcast.net>, David J Dachtera wrote:
    > > Daniel Rock wrote:
    > >>
    > >> [snip]
    > >> With the GRUB boot loader, on x86/amd64 you should also run "init 6" to
    > >> refresh your boot archive. I never would recommend running "reboot" instead
    > >> of "init 6". I'm wondering why it is still mentioned in the Sun documentation
    > >> on a few locations (... restart with 'reboot -- -r' ...)

    > >
    > > Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    > > to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    > > "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?

    >
    > Well, it's not generally a real good idea to touch vendor-supplied
    > binaries. (Be it for OpenVMS, Solaris, Linux, Windows, or otherwise.)
    >
    > Main issue is with compatibility with existing tools *AND* with future tools.
    >
    > That's just a Pandora's Box that you *really* don't want to open unless
    > you're willing to support yourself and solve any problems without
    > calling Sun, even if you don't have access to source for all the tools.
    >
    > If I was in a really desperate situation, and where I didn't have vendor
    > support for either the OS or application, and if my job was on the line
    > for making things work, I might go that route (but consider finding new
    > employment elsewhere in the meantime).
    >
    > Otherwise, I wouldn't even think of it.
    >
    > Make tools conform to the provided OS vendor's setup, instead of the
    > other way around.
    >
    > -Dan



  6. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    David J Dachtera writes:
    > O.k., dumb question time (with apologies to the local UN*X gurus -
    > obviously I'm crossing-over from another world)...
    >
    > Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    > to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    > "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?


    Not a good idea.

    Altering files that are delivered as type "f" via packaging cannot be
    supported. If you install a patch or upgrade the system, the
    patch/upgrade process will just blow away your changes.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  7. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    James Carlson wrote:
    >
    > David J Dachtera writes:
    > > O.k., dumb question time (with apologies to the local UN*X gurus -
    > > obviously I'm crossing-over from another world)...
    > >
    > > Would it be much of an idea to find the "reboot" executable, rename it
    > > to something else, say "reboot_do_not_use", then replace it with a
    > > "one-liner" named "reboot" containing "init 6" ?

    >
    > Not a good idea.
    >
    > Altering files that are delivered as type "f" via packaging cannot be
    > supported. If you install a patch or upgrade the system, the
    > patch/upgrade process will just blow away your changes.


    ....at which time you simply re-apply them.

    O.k. All responses considered (and playing "Devil's advocate" here):

    Given that there's "no return" from either "reboot" or "init 6", why
    does any of this matter? From the other comments in this thread, I
    gathered that "reboot" doesn't do things that "init 6" does. So, it
    seems to me that the more thorough procedure should be the best.

    Are there run-downs in the "init 6" sequence (but not in the "reboot"
    sequence) that can cause harm if invoked needlessly?

    Are there procedures that are invoked by "reboot" but not by "init 6"?

    In VMSland, we also attempt to maintain backward-compatibility. There is
    only one provided way to shutdown the o.s. and all it's services, as
    well any site-specific shutdowns that need to occur. Naturally, there is
    one key binary at the heart of it all that will cause the o.s. to
    relinquish control of the CPU back to the console environment. Needless
    to say, invoking it alone would be equivalent to hitting the reset
    button on a PC. So, no one ever does that.

    Hence, my confusion.

    --
    David J Dachtera
    dba DJE Systems
    http://www.djesys.com/

    Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

    Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

    Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
    http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

    Coming soon:
    Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page

  8. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    >>>>> David J Dachtera writes:

    > O.k. All responses considered (and playing "Devil's advocate"
    > here):
    >
    > Given that there's "no return" from either "reboot" or "init
    > 6", why does any of this matter? From the other comments in
    > this thread, I gathered that "reboot" doesn't do things that
    > "init 6" does. So, it seems to me that the more thorough
    > procedure should be the best.


    'reboot' doesn't invoke the shutdown scripts for the various
    subsystems but simply terminates all running processes and initiates
    the reboot (issuing the syscall 'uadmin' with appropriate
    parameters). 'reboot' is the final step in the standard shutdown
    sequence, probably not unlike the "one key binary at the heart of it
    all" (VMS) you mentioned below.

    'init' is the first process started by the kernel; it controls the
    startup and shutdown procedures (or more precisely: the run level
    transitions; the pseudo-runlevels 0,5,6 are used for bringing down the
    system, see http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816...bb1kq45?a=view
    for details). Init will invoke the appropriate startup and shutdown
    scripts for the target runlevel, which is important for required
    cleanup or configuration change tasks that affect the file system;
    those just won't get done when using 'reboot' directly (the "Live
    Upgrade" feature is a case in point).

    'shutdown' will notify all logged-in users (and give them a grace
    period to log out before they get kicked off the system) and then
    invoke init to perform the actual shutdown. Wrt to system integrity
    there is no difference between using 'init' and 'shutdown'.

    So the standard "nice" shutdown sequence is:

    a) 'shutdown' notifies users, waits for an admin-controlled grace
    period, then invokes

    b) 'init' that will cleanly shut down all subsystems then invoke

    c) either 'shutdown' to forcibly terminate any left-over processes
    including init and terminate the kernel or 'reboot' to do the same
    and reboot after that.

    > Are there run-downs in the "init 6" sequence (but not in the
    > "reboot" sequence) that can cause harm if invoked needlessly?


    No, except in very special cases, see below.

    > Are there procedures that are invoked by "reboot" but not by
    > "init 6"?


    No.

    > In VMSland, we also attempt to maintain
    > backward-compatibility. There is only one provided way to
    > shutdown the o.s. and all it's services, as well any
    > site-specific shutdowns that need to occur. Naturally, there is
    > one key binary at the heart of it all that will cause the
    > o.s. to relinquish control of the CPU back to the console
    > environment. Needless to say, invoking it alone would be
    > equivalent to hitting the reset button on a PC. So, no one ever
    > does that.


    'reboot' and 'shutdown' should not normally be invoked directly, but
    can do some things that the clean shutdown procedure cannot, such as
    passing non-default parameters to the kernel on reboot or initiate a
    crash dump or reboot without flushing dirty buffers to disk. Normally
    meant for emergency procedures, but sometimes just used by impatient
    sysadmins to bring down the system fast & dirty...

    HTH,
    Stefan

    --
    Stefan Jankowski
    Sysadmin, University of Freiburg, CS Dpt.
    s/spambucket//
    s/dave\.null/${FORENAME}.${LASTNAME}/

  9. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    Stefan Jankowski wrote:
    > So the standard "nice" shutdown sequence is:
    >
    > a) 'shutdown' notifies users, waits for an admin-controlled grace
    > period, then invokes
    >
    > b) 'init' that will cleanly shut down all subsystems then invoke
    >
    > c) either 'shutdown' to forcibly terminate any left-over processes

    ^^^^^^^^
    > including init and terminate the kernel or 'reboot' to do the same
    > and reboot after that.


    Did you perhaps mean "halt" here?

  10. Re: Questions On Solaris 10 x86 URGENT!!

    >>>>> Henry Townsend writes:

    > Stefan Jankowski wrote:

    [...]
    >> c) either 'shutdown' to forcibly terminate any left-over
    >> processes

    > ^^^^^^^^
    >> including init and terminate the kernel or 'reboot' to do the
    >> same and reboot after that.

    >
    > Did you perhaps mean "halt" here?


    Er, yes, in fact I did... %)

    Also forgot to mention that there's poweroff(1M), a variant of
    halt(1M) that does what it's name suggests on HW that supports it.

    --
    Stefan Jankowski
    Sysadmin, University of Freiburg, CS Dpt.
    s/spambucket//
    s/dave\.null/${FORENAME}.${LASTNAME}/

+ Reply to Thread