Rant about Berke­ley­DB docs

I was build­ing Berke­ley­DB (4.7, yes I know, there are more recent ver­sions avail­able) on a Solaris machine. First try was to unpack, cd into the direc­to­ry, run con­fig­ure. It failed, there is no con­fig­ure script. Bah. 🙁

Sec­ond try: search­ing for docs… found some… in HTML (the README refers to it and tells noth­ing else). This is a remote machine, I do not want to use a HTML brows­er remote­ly (I may not even have one installed there…). Bah. 🙁

Ok, dist/configure exists, no spe­cial options need­ed for my case, it seems.

There is even a Solaris spe­cif­ic HTML file, but from a quick glance at it with ‘less’, it looks like a FAQ.

Usabil­i­ty from a com­mand line: zero.
Pos­si­bil­i­ty to com­pile from a GUI (unix): I doubt it.

What is wrong with plain text files? If I down­load the source and want to com­pile it (and for Solaris this is the nor­mal way of work­ing), why the hell do I need some GUI instead of get­ting a plain text file with the required descrip­tion (which is not graph­i­cal­ly enhanced in the HTML ver­sion either)? You can even gen­er­ate a plain text ver­sion of the docs auto­mat­i­cal­ly dur­ing the src-packaging process.

Hey Ora­cle, there is room for improve­ment here!

Fight­ing with the Ora­cle Direc­to­ry Serv­er 7 (DSEE7) on Solaris 10 update 9

After mov­ing our sec­ondary man­age­ment site (our team is split up into 2 dif­fer­ent loca­tions) to a new build­ing, we decid­ed to clean-up some things. One of those things involves mov­ing the LDAP to a dif­fer­ent machine (more or less a new serv­er for the new site, it is inde­pen­dent regard­ing LDAP/homes/… from the pri­ma­ry site). While I am at it, I take the oppor­tu­ni­ty to move from DSEE5 to DSEE7 (my pre­vi­ous post about the DSEE6 migra­tion was at the pri­ma­ry site). This time I took the pack­age dis­tri­b­u­tion instead of the zip dis­tri­b­u­tion (the main rea­son is that I can get patch-listings with an auto­mat­ic tool, and the sec­ondary man­age­ment site has no disaster-recovery require­ments for the appli­ca­tions… we just will set­up a new sec­ondary site some­where else if necessary).

Here my expe­ri­ences with the instal­la­tion instruc­tions of DSEE7.

  • The install instruc­tions refer to the web inter­face for the DSEE7 man­age­ment, but I have not seen some­thing which tells you first have to set­up an appli­ca­tion serv­er (this was bet­ter in the DSEE6 instructions).
  • When using the Glass­fish appli­ca­tion serv­er which comes with Solaris 10 for the web inter­face, you will get an excep­tion after deploy­ing the dscc7.war, as it is using an out­dat­ed JVM. After some fight­ing and Googling, I found that I have to change the AS_JAVA val­ue in /usr/appserver/config/asenv.conf to a more recent JVM as it is point­ing to the very out­dat­ed j2se 1.4.x. I point­ed it to /usr/java (which is a sym­link to the most recent ver­sion installed as a pack­age). Instead of the orig­i­nal excep­tion I got anoth­er one now (after a redi­rec­tion in the web-browser), some­thing that it can not find the AntMain class (Glass­fish uses ANT from /usr/sfw, this is the one which comes with Solaris 10 update 9). I tried with Java 5 instead of Java 6, but I get the same error. In the net there are some dis­cus­sions about such errors (it is even a FAQ at the ANT site), but this Glassfish/DSEE7 thing is a black box for me, so what am I sup­posed to do here (I do not want to put the sys­tem into an unof­fi­cial state by installing my own ANT for Glassfish/DSEE7)?
    It was not men­tioned in the Appen­dix of the DSEE7 install instruc­tions which explains how to install the .war in Glass­fish that you have to change to a more recent JVM, and I still fight with the AntMain prob­lem (hey Ora­cle, there is room for improve­ment in the prod­uct com­pat­i­bil­i­ty test­ing and doc­u­men­ta­tion ver­i­fi­ca­tion process).

I will update this post­ing when I make some advance­ments. For now I let the web inter­face in the bad state as it is and con­cen­trate on fin­ish­ing the LDAP move to the new sys­tem (installing an DSEE on a back­up sys­tem, con­fig­ur­ing repli­ca­tion, switch­ing the clients to them). The web inter­face is inde­pen­dent enough to han­dle it lat­er (hints wel­come, that is the main pur­pose why I write this pos­ing in the mid­dle of the work).

IPv6 in my WLAN

The man­u­fac­tur­er of my WLAN router released a new firmware. It con­tains IPv6 and DNSSEC sup­port. I got a lit­tle bit of time and pow­er to install it. Unfor­tu­nate­ly my ISP does not pro­vide IPv6 connectivity.

I have now installed the IPv6 sup­port in Win­dows XP for the Net­book, cre­at­ed (and reg­is­tered) an ULA pre­fix at SixXS, and ver­i­fied that the net­work stack of XP gets it from the WLAN router.

When I do an IPv6 ping from the lap­top to the router, it works, but the IPv6 address does not show up in the Home­net­work overview of the router. Seems they still have some work to do.

Regard­ing DNSSEC I do not see any options in the man­age­ment inter­face, but I assume it just means that the DNS serv­er does the right thing when he is con­front­ed with recur­sive DNSSEC requests. No idea if he will val­i­date him­self and if yes, if he will add some log mes­sages regard­ing it or not.

Under­stand­ing latency

Bren­dan Gregg of Sun Ora­cle fame made a good expla­na­tion how to visu­al­ize laten­cy to get a bet­ter under­stand­ing of what is going on (and as such about how to solve bot­tle­necks). I have seen all this already in var­i­ous posts in his blog and in the Ana­lyt­ics pack­age in an Open­Stor­age pre­sen­ta­tion, but the ACM arti­cle sum­ma­rizes it very good.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly Ana­lyt­ics is AFAIK not avail­able in Open­So­laris, so we can not go out and adapt it for FreeB­SD (which would prob­a­bly require to port/implement some addi­tion­al dtrace stuff/probes). I am sure some­thing like this would be very inter­est­ing to all those com­pa­nies which use FreeB­SD in an appli­ance (regard­less if it is a stor­age appli­ance like NetApp, or a net­work appli­ance like a Cisco/Juniper router, or any­thing else which has to per­form good).

Progress with Net­work­er bugs

Our bug with savep­n­pc which caus­es the post-command to start one minute after the pre-command even if the back­up is not done yet is now hope­ful­ly near the res­o­lu­tion point. We opened a prob­lem report for this in July, this week we where told that there is a patch for it avail­able. The bad part is, that it is avail­able since 3 weeks and nobody told us. The good part is, that we have it installed on a machine now to see if it helps (all zones there seem to be OK, but we have zones where it some­times works and some­times fails, so we are not 100% sure, but we hope the best). We where told that it will be includ­ed in Net­work­er 7.5.1.8.

Our oth­er issues are now at least not in a helpdesk-loop any­more, they seem to have reached the devel­op­ers now.