[Sunhelp] System Reboots

Tue Jan 18 05:39:00 CST 2000

Jacques,
         Just to clarify, The systems are running Solaris 2.5 (NOT 2.6), 
and the patch you refer to does not apply. Given that the same thing is 
happening to at least two systems after applying Y2K patches,  it becomes 
less likely to be a coincidental hardware fault especially as the system 
ran faultlessly before the patches were applied.

Stephen Condit

At 12:00 17/01/00 -0600, you wrote:

>Send SunHELP mailing list submissions to
>         sunhelp at sunhelp.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
>         http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/sunhelp
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         sunhelp-request at sunhelp.org
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>         sunhelp-admin at sunhelp.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
>"Re: Contents of SunHELP digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>   1. E6000 upgrade or new system?(CAPACITY PLANNING) (Atawneh, Deyaeddin M)
>   2. System reboots - patch: 105181-17 (OS 2.6) (Jacques Botha)
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:24:12 +0300
>From: "Atawneh, Deyaeddin M" <ATAWNEDM at mail.aramco.com.sa>
>To: "'sunhelp at ohno.mrbill.net'" <sunhelp at ohno.mrbill.net>,
>"'Sun Managers'" <sun-managers at sunmanagers.ececs.uc.edu>
><F7B1FA5CA8FCD111B8210000F6B2DDF702185B60 at d1xchg5s.enp.aramco.com.sa>
>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF60C4.55639290"
>Subject: [Sunhelp] E6000 upgrade or new system?(CAPACITY PLANNING)
>Reply-To: sunhelp at sunhelp.org
>
>This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
>this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF60C4.55639290
>Content-Type: text/plain
>
>Hi Sun experts,
>
>I have one question for interested people, We have E6000 system with 14 CPU
>(366Mhz) and we want to run more applications on, we know that we need more
>processing capacity to handle the new applications. My question is which is
>better to add more CPU's to the current system or buying a new E4500
>system??
>
>I mean if we use 8 CPUS more, which is better to get the maximum performance
>of it? on the same system or on new E4500???
>
>Who can find or has info about the performance/number of CPUs graph or
>tables for Sun systems.?
>
>
>B.regards
>Deya Eddin Atawneh.
>Jeraisy UNIX account Supervisor.
>ARAMCO/ Dhahran
>)  :   (ATAWNEDM at mail.aramco.com.sa)
>% :  00966-3-8730333
>*: 00966-55872795
>
>
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF60C4.55639290
>Content-Type: text/html
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
>E6000 upgrade or new system?(CAPACITY PLANNING)
>
>Hi Sun experts,
>
>I have one question for interested people, We = have E6000 system with 14 
>CPU (366Mhz) and we want to run more = applications on, we know that we 
>need more processing capacity to = handle the new applications. My 
>question is which is better to add more = CPU's to the current system or 
>buying a new E4500 system??
>
>I mean if we use 8 CPUS more, which is better = to get the maximum 
>performance of it? on the same system or on new = E4500???
>
>Who can find or has info about the = performance/number of CPUs graph or 
>tables for Sun systems.?
>
>B.regards
>Deya Eddin = Atawneh.
>Jeraisy UNIX = account Supervisor.
>ARAMCO/ = Dhahran
>):   (ATAWNEDM at mail.aramco.com.sa)
>:  00966-3-8730333
>
>------_=_NextPart_001_01BF60C4.55639290--
>
>--__--__--
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:32:04 -0800 (PST)
>From: Jacques Botha <j_botha at yahoo.com>
>To: sunhelp at sunhelp.org
>Subject: [Sunhelp] System reboots - patch: 105181-17 (OS 2.6)
>Reply-To: sunhelp at sunhelp.org
>
>Hi all,
>
>Regarding all the system reboots; it is a known fact
>that the Solaris 2.6 kernel patch 105181-17 DOES CAUSE
>SERVER "CRASHES / REBOOTS"... THUS: if you have this
>patch loaded, the suggestion would be to "backout"
>this patch, and then install either version -16 or -15
>of this patch...
>
>Regarding the "panics" -> this could definitely be
>related to a "corrupt kernel" or, if all the correct
>kernel patches has been loaded, then this "panic"
>(depends on the actual panic-string) could also be
>related to "corrupted" filesystems, a (or multiple)
>bad cpu(S), and also, bad memory modules...
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Jacques Botha
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
>http://im.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>SunHELP maillist  -  SunHELP at sunhelp.org
>http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/sunhelp
>
>
>End of SunHELP Digest