Hi Folks:

   I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several years
toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.

   I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07.  How do I run it in 32 bit
mode?

   I'm trying to use an old Adaptec AHA-2940UW SCSI card so I can run
ufsrestore to recover my work, and no 64 bit drivers seem to exist.  I
hope a 32 bit boot of Solaris will magically make everything cool.
Or, at least, be a step toward recovering those files.

                               Thanks
                               Larry

On 2009-06-29 04:46:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_turbo@hotmail.com> said:

> Hi Folks:
> 
>    I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several years
> toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
> 
>    I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07.  How do I run it in 32 bit
> mode?

It is similar to OpenSolaris, except the grub menu is in 
/boot/grub/menu.lst instead.

-- 
Chris

On Jun 28, 11:26=A0pm, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-29 04:46:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_tu...@hotmail.com> =
said:
>
> > Hi Folks:
>
> > =A0 =A0I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several ye=
ars
> > toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>
> > =A0 =A0I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07. =A0How do I run it in 32 bit
> > mode?
>
> It is similar to OpenSolaris, except the grub menu is in
> /boot/grub/menu.lst instead.
>
> --
> Chris

Thanks Again Chris:

   It seems very dissimilar to what I'd done to boot OpenSolaris in 32
bit mode, guided by your simple but lucid instructions.

   In OpenSolaris, I edited out a variable that, if memory serves,
inserted "amd64" into a couple of lines that described paths.

   When I looked at the OpenSolaris /platform directory I could see
that it has a sub directory for each version of the paths, with
"amd64" and without.

   The Solaris /platform directory isn't organized like that.

   Displayed during the Grub boot:

          kernel /platform/i86pc/multiboot
          module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive

   The following files are there,

          /platform/i86pc/multiboot
          /platform/i86pc/boot_archive

   multiboot is an executable, but "man multiboot" comes up empty.

   Is there a site where I can find out, or can you tell me, exactly
what to do?

   I appreciate your assistance Chris, but I'm hoping to get to work
without going cover to cover on the Grub reference manual and the
Solaris System Programmer's Guide.

                                  Thanks
                                  Larry

On Jun 28, 11:26=A0pm, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-29 04:46:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_tu...@hotmail.com> =
said:
>
> > Hi Folks:
>
> > =A0 =A0I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several ye=
ars
> > toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>
> > =A0 =A0I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07. =A0How do I run it in 32 bit
> > mode?
>
> It is similar to OpenSolaris, except the grub menu is in
> /boot/grub/menu.lst instead.
>
> --
> Chris

Thanks Again Chris:

   It seems very dissimilar to what I'd done to boot OpenSolaris in 32
bit mode, guided by your simple but lucid instructions.

   In OpenSolaris, I edited out a variable that, if memory serves,
inserted "amd64" into a couple of lines that described paths.

   When I looked at the OpenSolaris /platform directory I could see
that it has a sub directory for each version of the paths, with
"amd64" and without.

   The Solaris /platform directory isn't organized like that.

   Displayed during the Grub boot:

          kernel /platform/i86pc/multiboot
          module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive

   The following files are there,

          /platform/i86pc/multiboot
          /platform/i86pc/boot_archive

   multiboot is an executable, but "man multiboot" comes up empty.

   Is there a site where I can find out, or can you tell me, exactly
what to do?

   I appreciate your assistance Chris, but I'm hoping to get to work
without going cover to cover on the Grub reference manual and the
Solaris System Programmer's Guide.

                                  Thanks
                                  Larry

On 2009-06-29 09:35:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_turbo@hotmail.com> said:

> On Jun 28, 11:26�pm, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-06-29 04:46:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_tu...@hotmail.com>
> said:
>> 
>>> Hi Folks:
>> 
>>> � �I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several ye
> ars
>>> toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>> 
>>> � �I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07. �How do I run it in 32 bit
>>> mode?
>> 
>> It is similar to OpenSolaris, except the grub menu is in
>> /boot/grub/menu.lst instead.
>> 
>> --
>> Chris
> 
> Thanks Again Chris:
> 
>    It seems very dissimilar to what I'd done to boot OpenSolaris in 32
> bit mode, guided by your simple but lucid instructions.
> 
>    In OpenSolaris, I edited out a variable that, if memory serves,
> inserted "amd64" into a couple of lines that described paths.
> 
>    When I looked at the OpenSolaris /platform directory I could see
> that it has a sub directory for each version of the paths, with
> "amd64" and without.
> 
>    The Solaris /platform directory isn't organized like that.
> 
>    Displayed during the Grub boot:
> 
>           kernel /platform/i86pc/multiboot
>           module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive
> 
>    The following files are there,
> 
>           /platform/i86pc/multiboot
>           /platform/i86pc/boot_archive
> 
>    multiboot is an executable, but "man multiboot" comes up empty.
> 
>    Is there a site where I can find out, or can you tell me, exactly
> what to do?
> 
>    I appreciate your assistance Chris, but I'm hoping to get to work
> without going cover to cover on the Grub reference manual and the
> Solaris System Programmer's Guide.

I'm using OpenSolaris instead of Solaris on x86, so may have got the 
details a bit wrong - sorry!

But <http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1985/hbsysboot-76719?a=view> 
ought to tell you the absolute correct info.

-- 
Chris

On Jun 29, 1:43=A0am, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-29 09:35:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_tu...@hotmail.com> =
said:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 11:26=A0pm, Chris Ridd <chrisr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-06-29 04:46:49 +0100, Larry Lindstrom <larryl_tu...@hotmail.co=
m>
> > said:
>
> >>> Hi Folks:
>
> >>> =A0 =A0I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several =
ye
> > ars
> >>> toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>
> >>> =A0 =A0I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07. =A0How do I run it in 32 b=
it
> >>> mode?
>
> >> It is similar to OpenSolaris, except the grub menu is in
> >> /boot/grub/menu.lst instead.
>
> >> --
> >> Chris
>
> > Thanks Again Chris:
>
> > =A0 =A0It seems very dissimilar to what I'd done to boot OpenSolaris in=
 32
> > bit mode, guided by your simple but lucid instructions.
>
> > =A0 =A0In OpenSolaris, I edited out a variable that, if memory serves,
> > inserted "amd64" into a couple of lines that described paths.
>
> > =A0 =A0When I looked at the OpenSolaris /platform directory I could see
> > that it has a sub directory for each version of the paths, with
> > "amd64" and without.
>
> > =A0 =A0The Solaris /platform directory isn't organized like that.
>
> > =A0 =A0Displayed during the Grub boot:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 kernel /platform/i86pc/multiboot
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive
>
> > =A0 =A0The following files are there,
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 /platform/i86pc/multiboot
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 /platform/i86pc/boot_archive
>
> > =A0 =A0multiboot is an executable, but "man multiboot" comes up empty.
>
> > =A0 =A0Is there a site where I can find out, or can you tell me, exactl=
y
> > what to do?
>
> > =A0 =A0I appreciate your assistance Chris, but I'm hoping to get to wor=
k
> > without going cover to cover on the Grub reference manual and the
> > Solaris System Programmer's Guide.
>
> I'm using OpenSolaris instead of Solaris on x86, so may have got the
> details a bit wrong - sorry!
>
> But <http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-1985/hbsysboot-76719?a=3Dview>
> ought to tell you the absolute correct info.
>
> --
> Chris

Thanks Again Chris:

   I've got it.  It wasn't on the page you pointed to, but it was at
that site.

   Edit the "normal" looking boot command.

   Edit the kernel line

   Append " kernel/unix" to the end of that line.

   Press "b" to boot from the editor.

   This appears to work for me, but of course I have no idea of what
I'm doing.  So use this at your own risk.

   And it looks like ufsrestore has given me the files I was looking
for.

                                Thanks
                                Larry

In comp.unix.solaris Larry Lindstrom <larryl_turbo@hotmail.com> wrote:
>   The Solaris /platform directory isn't organized like that.
> 
>   Displayed during the Grub boot:
> 
>          kernel /platform/i86pc/multiboot
>          module /platform/i86pc/boot_archive

Just for reference, multiboot was the old way of the boot loader
choosing 32/64 bits.  I think it disappeared in the update4 or update5
timeframe.  It is not used on OpenSolaris or on later releases of
Solaris 10.

-- 
Darren

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Lindstrom <larryl_turbo@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi Folks:
>
>   I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several years
>toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>
>   I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07.  How do I run it in 32 bit
>mode?
>
>   I'm trying to use an old Adaptec AHA-2940UW SCSI card so I can run
>ufsrestore to recover my work, and no 64 bit drivers seem to exist.  I
>hope a 32 bit boot of Solaris will magically make everything cool.
>Or, at least, be a step toward recovering those files.

Run it with a 32 bit CPU.

>
>                               Thanks
>                               Larry

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Larry Lindstrom <larryl_turbo@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Folks:
>>
>>   I'm attempting to return to Solaris development after several years
>> toiling in Windows unpleasant shadow.
>>
>>   I've installed x86 Solaris 10 8/07.  How do I run it in 32 bit
>> mode?
>>
>>   I'm trying to use an old Adaptec AHA-2940UW SCSI card so I can run
>> ufsrestore to recover my work, and no 64 bit drivers seem to exist.  I
>> hope a 32 bit boot of Solaris will magically make everything cool.
>> Or, at least, be a step toward recovering those files.
> 
> Run it with a 32 bit CPU.
> 
>>                               Thanks
>>                               Larry
> 
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

I know on SPARC, S10 does not support any 32-bit CPUs. I don't know 
about x86, but I would not be surprised if it does support 32-bit CPUs.



-- 
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange'  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.

In article <4a4ac160@212.67.96.135>, Dave  <foo@coo.com> wrote:
>I know on SPARC, S10 does not support any 32-bit CPUs. I don't know 
>about x86, but I would not be surprised if it does support 32-bit CPUs.

Sun still supports 32-bit Solaris 10 on x86 including its legacy
32-bit Pentium 3 and 4 systems (eg LX50 and V60/V65.)

I see no mention of their EOL in the Solaris 10 May 2009 release
notes.
<URL:http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-7273/eos-36?a=view>

John
groenveld@acm.org

In article <h2fm7f$ng6o$1@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu>,
	groenvel@cse.psu.edu (John D Groenveld) writes:
> In article <4a4ac160@212.67.96.135>, Dave  <foo@coo.com> wrote:
>>I know on SPARC, S10 does not support any 32-bit CPUs. I don't know 
>>about x86, but I would not be surprised if it does support 32-bit CPUs.
> 
> Sun still supports 32-bit Solaris 10 on x86 including its legacy
> 32-bit Pentium 3 and 4 systems (eg LX50 and V60/V65.)
> 
> I see no mention of their EOL in the Solaris 10 May 2009 release
> notes.
> <URL:http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-7273/eos-36?a=view>

AFAIK (without actually going and checking), the last x86 systems
to be EOL'ed were 100MHz and lower Pentium I, and that was mainly
to remove the code to work around the FDIV bug in them. However,
most systems that old had motherboard chipsets which only support
128MB ram, and that became unbootable with the changeover to grub
boot in Solaris 10 update 1. Indeed, the limiting factor on many
older x86 systems now is if you can fit enough RAM to be able to
boot Solaris, and not so much on what the CPU actually is.
Actually, Solaris requires more memory to install than it does
to boot and run after installation, so you can find cases where
you can't install, although if you could get over that hurdle, it
would boot.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <h2fm7f$ng6o$1@tr22n12.aset.psu.edu>,
> 	groenvel@cse.psu.edu (John D Groenveld) writes:
>> In article <4a4ac160@212.67.96.135>, Dave  <foo@coo.com> wrote:
>>> I know on SPARC, S10 does not support any 32-bit CPUs. I don't know 
>>> about x86, but I would not be surprised if it does support 32-bit CPUs.
>> Sun still supports 32-bit Solaris 10 on x86 including its legacy
>> 32-bit Pentium 3 and 4 systems (eg LX50 and V60/V65.)
>>
>> I see no mention of their EOL in the Solaris 10 May 2009 release
>> notes.
>> <URL:http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-7273/eos-36?a=view>
> 
> AFAIK (without actually going and checking), the last x86 systems
> to be EOL'ed were 100MHz and lower Pentium I, and that was mainly
> to remove the code to work around the FDIV bug in them. However,
> most systems that old had motherboard chipsets which only support
> 128MB ram, and that became unbootable with the changeover to grub
> boot in Solaris 10 update 1. Indeed, the limiting factor on many
> older x86 systems now is if you can fit enough RAM to be able to
> boot Solaris, and not so much on what the CPU actually is.
> Actually, Solaris requires more memory to install than it does
> to boot and run after installation, so you can find cases where
> you can't install, although if you could get over that hurdle, it
> would boot.
> 

Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, to run hardware that old?
It works but the cost of support can become unreasonable if it's 
available at all!

In article <GsGdnQ10uphv8tbXnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> 
> Is there any reason, other than nostalgia, to run hardware that old?
> It works but the cost of support can become unreasonable if it's 
> available at all!

I suspect the cost of support is less than the cost of desupporting
it.  It's up to the relevant engineering teams to make a case for
desupporting it, if that's what they want to do.

Actually, the desupport of the software FDIV code probably ended
up costing more than supporting it. After removal, it was found it
was needed in any case for some other purpose, and had to be put
back in again. Nothing's for free.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]