This problem can be fixed. Check out

"How to add an underlying partition for /opt."


in the Veritas Knowledge Base. It explains how to use vxmksdpart to
create an underlying partition for a subdisk. Following these
directions, I have recreated the the /opt partition on my rootdisk and
created an underlying partition for /usr on the root mirror disk. (I
have VM 3.0.2 on Solaris 7.)

Michael

In article <38e16a19@hronntp01.>, Iftikhar Barrie
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> If you have partitioned your boot drives with seperate partitions for 'opt',
> 'var' etc. , you are going to be in for a shock. Check your underlying
> partitions
> ... I will attatch the following mail ... This will effect your upgrade
> becuase if you have partitioned your disk as described above, your original
> encapsulation process would have zeroed out your opt partition, and one of
> the requirements of the upgrade process is to have each exisiting volume
> have it's own partition ... Veritas does not seem to think this is a serious
> problem ....
>
> PLEASE READ:
>
> If you are going to install Veritas Volume Manager (VxVM) and encapsulate
> your boot drive and your boot disk layout includes separate partitions for
> 'opt' and - or 'var' this will definitely interest you.
>
> Basically during the encapsulation process, the '/opt' (and some other
> partitions
> such as '/var' ) partition is removed ! Veritas does not seem to recognize
> this as a serious problem as they are only responding with a 'documentation'
> change as opposed to changing their VxVM binary. This was discovered at
> CIBC World Markets when we tried to run an upgrade of VxVM from 2.5.4 to
> version 3.0.1 One of the requirements of the upgrade process
> was that each existing volume must be located on it's own disk partition
> ! I ask Veritas how can I have a successful upgrade process when your
> encapsulation
> process does a number on my disk partitions ?!!!
>
> You can take my word on this incident as I worked on the project myself .
> The call was put into Veritas by CIBC WM's value added reseller (VAR)......
> Please refer to the attached correspondence .... All names have been removed,
> except my own and any person associated with Veritas. I am definitely going
> to make a big noise about this one ....
>
> regards,
>
> Iftikhar Barrie
> Systems and Database Admin.
> Agincourt Business Services
> http://www.abs-inet.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 3:21 PM
> Subject: RE: FW: Enhancement request.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Forward Header
> > __________________________________
> > Subject: RE: FW: Enhancement request.
> > BCEEXCH
> > Date: 3/28/00 10:26 AM
> >
> >
> > Iftikhar,
> >
> > I'm covering this one for xxxxx today. I've put your request in to Veritas
> > for the SE onsite and for the binary change instead of a documentation
> > change.
> >
> > I suspect that the SE onsite might be a chargeable item, but I am pushing
> > for no charge - I can't honestly give you an estimate of my chances to

> get
> > this for free.
> >
> > It might take a lot of commotion from the Veritas User base to get the
> > binary change in place instead. You might want to post something to the
> > Veritas News groups - Veritas engineering staff read them, and they do

> seem
> > to listen. If you spark a "public" outcry, it will lend momentum to the
> > request we, as a VAR have put in on your behalf.
> >
> > At your service,
> >
> > >

> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:17 AM
> > Subject: RE: FW: Enhancement request.
> >
> >
> > Hi xxxxx
> >
> > I recd. your voice mail also. Thanks. Sorry I could not get back to
> > you sooner as I was not in the office yesterday.
> >
> > We were hoping that the reply from Veritas would include a binary
> > change so that any partition layout could be used. In my opinion,

> it
> > does not make any sense that I have to partition my boot drive in

> a
> > certain way to work around a problem with the VxVM encapsulation.

> If
> > we were to purchase / upgrade to a new version of VxVM we would have
> > hoped that this problem would have been fixed.
> >
> > With respect to our immediate issue of upgrades, in order to help

> us
> > get around the situation, we would like to request that Veritas send
> > in an engineer to actually handle the upgrade of VxVM of our QA and
> > production environments and take full responsibility for this portion
> > of it.
> >
> > We really appreciate xxxxxxx's effort in helping us resolve this
> > issue.
> >
> >
> > thanks again,
> >
> >
> > iftikhar
> >
> >
> >
> > ______________________________ Reply Separator
> > _________________________________
> > Subject: FW: Enhancement request.
> >
> > Date: 3/24/00 4:22 PM
> >
> >
> > Iftikhar,
> >
> > Below is the email I received from Veritas concerning the enhancement
> > request. I have logged this information in xxxxxx call number 9302.
> >
> > Regards,
> > xxxxxxxx
> >
> > Customer Support Specialist (CSS)
> > (
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Veritas Customer Support [mailto:support@veritas.com]
> > Sent: March 23, 2000 6:55 PM
> >
> > Subject: CaseID:234318 Enhancement request.
> >
> >
> > xxxxx,
> >
> > I have filed an enhancement request for documentation on the removal of

> the
> > /opt partition. I have also requested that a warning be displayed, upon
> > encapsulation, that the partition layout will be changed. The incident
> > number is 40665.
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Katie Taylor
> > VERITAS Technical Support
> >
> >

>
>
> "Prabhakar" wrote:
> >
> >Hello -
> >
> > We are planning to upgrade from 2.5 to 3.02 on our solaris 2.6
> >E3000 box. I was wondering if there is anything to watch out for.
> >Also, should we just remove the existing packages and re-install
> >the packages from the 3,02 CD's? Will this work. The documentation
> >is not quite clear.
> >
> >
> >thanks
> >Prabhakar