[SunRay-Users] Live Upgrade with Sun Ray Server 4

Bob Doolittle Robert.Doolittle at Sun.COM
Wed Apr 23 13:40:56 EEST 2008

Gary Mills wrote:
> I did a Live Upgrade on a Sun Ray server running Solaris 10 8/07 to
> bring it up to Solaris 10 5/08.  This was an X4100 with Sun Ray server
> 4.0.  To begin, I created an alternate boot environment this way:
>     # lucreate -c firstlu -m /:c0t2d0s5:ufs -m /var:c0t2d0s7:ufs -n secndlu
> Then, I upgraded it this way:
>     # luupgrade -u -n secndlu -s /net/SERVER/jump/S10_up508_x86_cd
> The file /var/sadm/system/data/upgrade_cleanup on the alternate boot
> environment lists files that need to be reviewed before activating
> that BE.  I was surprised to see these files listed:
>   /usr/dt/config/Xreset: existing file renamed to /usr/dt/config/Xreset~10
>   /usr/dt/config/Xsetup: existing file renamed to /usr/dt/config/Xsetup~10
>   /usr/dt/config/Xstartup: existing file renamed to /usr/dt/config/Xstartup~10
>   /usr/dt/config/sessionetc: existing file renamed to /usr/dt/config/sessionetc~10
>   /a/etc/pam.conf default entries updated, please examine/update customized entries
>   /a/etc/pam.conf updating pam_unix with default PAM entries please examine/update any new entries
>   /a/etc/pam.conf updating entries to add kerberos, please examine/update any new entries
> The /etc/pam.conf file seemed to be correct, but the four files in
> /usr/dt/config had reverted to their original form, with all of the
> SUNWut sections removed.  I had to rename them back to retain the Sun
> Ray server changes.  After this, I activated the new BE and rebooted
> the server.  Sun Ray services seemed to work normally afterwards.
> I was pleased to see the new features of Solaris 10 5/08, including
> Staroffice 8.
> I'm concerned that Sun Ray server software is not well integrated with
> the Solaris package and patch system, so that Live Upgrade doesn't
> work in a more reliable manner.  Manual changes should only be
> necessary where the sysadmin has changed configuration files, not
> where Sun-supplied software has done it.  Can this situation be
> improved?

Thanks for your feedback.

In fact, the /usr/dt/config/X* file warnings are "red herrings".  If you 
had just booted the ABE you would have found that these files are 
instrumented properly during SRSS startup and required no manual 
intervention on your part.  In order to protect against patches and user 
modifications, a number of system files are instrumented by SRSS on 
every software restart, using "utrepair" and the templates stored in 
/opt/SUNWut/lib/prototype (it's interesting that the others didn't show 
up in warnings - they must not have been impacted by this particular 
upgrade).  So the only real issue here seems to be 
/usr/dt/config/sessionetc.  This file is updated by utadm.  We'll need 
to look into this further.

I suspect that these types of warnings are going to be generated for any 
layered product that updates system files, since by its nature 
live_upgrade can't know about layered products, and the onus is upon 
layered products to work properly with upgrades, not visa-versa.  SRSS 
does the right thing wrt /usr/dt/config/X{reset,setup,startup} but our 
sessionetc file handling looks like a bug to me at this point.  There's 
probably also a SRSS documentation bug since I don't think we mention 
that these warnings can be disregarded anywhere today.


Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this mail are my own, and are not 
necessarily shared by my employer

More information about the SunRay-Users mailing list