Hi,

How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?

I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.

In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to

echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi

under linux.

        Guido

Guido Winkelmann <guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net> writes:
> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
> 
> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
> Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.

Have you looked at cfgadm?

> In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to
> 
> echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi

Wow, that's brutal.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote:
> Guido Winkelmann <guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net> writes:
>> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
>> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
>> 
>> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
>> Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.
> 
> Have you looked at cfgadm?
> 
>> In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to
>> 
>> echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi
> 
> Wow, that's brutal.

In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or 
duplex of a network interface under solaris.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
> James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote:
>> Guido Winkelmann <guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net> writes:
>>> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
>>> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
>>>
>>> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
>>> Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.
>> Have you looked at cfgadm?
>>
>>> In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to
>>>
>>> echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi
>> Wow, that's brutal.
> 
> In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or 
> duplex of a network interface under solaris.
> 

How about just removing the drive and then doing a
"boot -r"
?

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> James Carlson <james.d.carlson@sun.com> wrote:
>>> Guido Winkelmann <guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net> writes:
>>>> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
>>>> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
>>>>
>>>> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could
>>>> install Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive
>>>> elsewhere.
>>> Have you looked at cfgadm?
[...]
>> 
> 
> How about just removing the drive and then doing a
> "boot -r"
> ?

I was hoping for a solution that doesn't require a reboot. I don't
absolutely need that machine to keep running, but since I was hoping to use
Solaris on a production server some time in the future, I thought I might
as well learn how SCSI hotplugging works in Solaris, while I'm at it.

On 01/21/09 13:58, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Cydrome Leader wrote:
>>> James Carlson<james.d.carlson@sun.com>  wrote:
>>>> Guido Winkelmann<guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net>  writes:
>>>>> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
>>>>> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
>>>>>
>>>>> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could
>>>>> install Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive
>>>>> elsewhere.
>>>> Have you looked at cfgadm?
> [...]
>> How about just removing the drive and then doing a
>> "boot -r"
>> ?
>
> I was hoping for a solution that doesn't require a reboot. I don't
> absolutely need that machine to keep running, but since I was hoping to use
> Solaris on a production server some time in the future, I thought I might
> as well learn how SCSI hotplugging works in Solaris, while I'm at it.

How about /usr/sbin/devfsadm -vC

Guido Winkelmann schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
> 
> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
> Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.
> 
> In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to
> 
> echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi
> 
> under linux.
> 
>         Guido

man cfgadm_scsi

e.g.
$ cfgadm -x remove_device c3::dsk/c3t4d0


HTH,
Thomas

Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
> Guido Winkelmann schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How do I safely remove an external SCSI device from a Sun box running
>> Solaris 10 without powering the machine off?
>>
>> I had attached an external DVD drive to my sun server so I could install
>> Solaris 10 on it, and now that that's done, I need the drive elsewhere.
>>
>> In short, I'm looking for a Solaris equivalent to
>>
>> echo "scsi remove-single-device 1 0 5 0" > /proc/scsi/scsi
>>
>> under linux.
>>
>>         Guido
> 
> man cfgadm_scsi
> 
> e.g.
> $ cfgadm -x remove_device c3::dsk/c3t4d0
> 
> 
> HTH,
> Thomas

Also worth noting from the man page:

WARNINGS
      The connectors on some SCSI devices do not conform  to  SCSI
      hotplug  specifications.  Performing  hotplug  operations on
      such devices can cause damage to the hardware  on  the  SCSI
      bus.  Refer  to your hardware manual for additional informa-
      tion.


Personally, I would take the power off if at all possible.

-- 
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Exchange Experts'. In case you are unaware,
'Exchange Experts' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches.

On Jan 21, 5:50=A0pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

> In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or
> duplex of a network interface under solaris.

Other than the (regrettably common, I agree) case of misconfigured
switches, when would you want to do this?  "Damn, my interface has
autonegotiated 100/full again, that's way too fast, I must set it back
to 10/half".

--tim

Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:50?pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>> In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or
>> duplex of a network interface under solaris.
> 
> Other than the (regrettably common, I agree) case of misconfigured
> switches, when would you want to do this?  "Damn, my interface has

It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware and 
the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.

amusingly, any machine made by SUN that uses pro/1000 NICs works just fine 
with autonegotiate, on the same switches or cables.

I've never seen any other OS fail so hard at autonegotiate.

As for switches, take your pick of cisco 4000, 2900, 3500 or 3750 series. 
It's always sparc based stuff that doesn't work right. The ce cards seem a 
bit better than hme, but they're all fairly awful.

Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> On Jan 21, 5:50 pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>> In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or
>> duplex of a network interface under solaris.
> 
> Other than the (regrettably common, I agree) case of misconfigured
> switches, when would you want to do this?  "Damn, my interface has
> autonegotiated 100/full again, that's way too fast, I must set it back
> to 10/half".
> 
> --tim

There is probably STILL some antique hardware in service that cannot 
properly negotiate speed/duplex.  Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s it 
was quite common to have to force both ends of the link to 100/Full 
Duplex.  ISTR it was something to do with an ambiguity in the standard 
that Cisco Systems interpreted one way and almost everyone else 
interpreted the other way.

Cydrome Leader wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@tfeb.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 5:50?pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In all fairness, it's about as stupid as the steps to change speed or
>>> duplex of a network interface under solaris.
>> Other than the (regrettably common, I agree) case of misconfigured
>> switches, when would you want to do this?  "Damn, my interface has
> 
> It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware and 
> the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.
> 
> amusingly, any machine made by SUN that uses pro/1000 NICs works just fine 
> with autonegotiate, on the same switches or cables.
> 
> I've never seen any other OS fail so hard at autonegotiate.
> 
> As for switches, take your pick of cisco 4000, 2900, 3500 or 3750 series. 
> It's always sparc based stuff that doesn't work right. The ce cards seem a 
> bit better than hme, but they're all fairly awful.
> 

My SPARC stuff with the HME a/k/a "Happy Meal" interface works just fine 
at 100 full talking to my Linksys (Cisco consumer brand) router/switch.
I don't recall that we had any special problems with Sun hardware at 
work.  Where the Sun stuff didn't work right, the PC/Windows systems had 
  similar problems.  The autonegotiation is done at hardware/firmware 
levels.  Just plug it in and it's SUPPOSED to work something like this:
Computer: "I can do 100 full duplex"
Switch: "I'm happy with 100/full"
or:
Computer "I can do 100 full duplex"
Switch: What???????
Computer: "Okay, how about 10 full duplex?"
Switch: "I'm happy with 10/full"

I think it's actually a little more complicated than that, starting at 
100/full, then 100/half, then 10/full and 10/half.  Even more 
complicated now because gigabit ethernet has now been added to the mix 
though I don't know how widespread it has become.  My hopelessly old 
fashioned hardware is all 10/100.

On 2009-01-22, Dave <foo@coo.com> wrote:

> WARNINGS
>       The connectors on some SCSI devices do not conform  to  SCSI
>       hotplug  specifications.  Performing  hotplug  operations on
>       such devices can cause damage to the hardware  on  the  SCSI
>       bus.  Refer  to your hardware manual for additional informa-
>       tion.
>
>
> Personally, I would take the power off if at all possible.

Seconded, thirded and quadrupled. On both ends.

	-is

On Jan 22, 4:31=A0pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

> It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware an=
d
> the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.
>

Which specific Sun HW gets autonegotiation wrong?

Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 4:31?pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware and
>> the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.
>>
> 
> Which specific Sun HW gets autonegotiation wrong?

anything with the ultra 60 or 80 boards.

anything with a qfe card will probably be wrong as well.

You can't honestly be so clueluess that you've never heard of this 
extremely well document and shitty behavior?

Cydrome Leader wrote:

> Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@tfeb.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 4:31?pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>> It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware
>>> and the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.
>> 
>> Which specific Sun HW gets autonegotiation wrong?
> 
> anything with the ultra 60 or 80 boards.

I've been using Ultra 60s for some time now, and at least some of the time
using Solaris 10, and I have not seen any such problems...

Guido Winkelmann <guido.winkelmann@pop-hannover.net> wrote:
> Cydrome Leader wrote:
> 
>> Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@tfeb.org> wrote:
>>> On Jan 22, 4:31?pm, Cydrome Leader <prese...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>> It's not switches that are wrong, it's always sun sparc based hardware
>>>> and the intense desire for 100/half and other stupid stuff like that.
>>> 
>>> Which specific Sun HW gets autonegotiation wrong?
>> 
>> anything with the ultra 60 or 80 boards.
> 
> I've been using Ultra 60s for some time now, and at least some of the time
> using Solaris 10, and I have not seen any such problems...

have you seen a submarine sink?