All,

I am facing plight in starting the inted daemon as it was killed by
some one and again we tried to start/restart but unable to do it.

We rebooted the machine again the problem is not yet been resolved.

Details of the m/c

Model: Sun Enterprise 420R (4 X UltraSPARC-II 450MHz)
OS: Solaris 2.8

/var/adm/messages o/p;-
inetd[10584]: [ID 729102 user.error] ISTATE not in environment

Does the parallel running of sac deamon effects the inetd part.

root   583     1  0 23:23:27 ?        0:00 /usr/lib/saf/sac -t 300
root 17211 16187  0 06:28:05 pts/2    0:00 grep -i sac

Please do reply me asap

Rgds,
Zamaron

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <d594874e.0410150329.1400196@posting.google.com>, mdzubair940@yahoo.com (zamaron)
 writes:
> All,
>
> I am facing plight in starting the inted daemon as it was killed by
> some one and again we tried to start/restart but unable to do it.
>
> We rebooted the machine again the problem is not yet been resolved.
>
> Details of the m/c
>
> Model: Sun Enterprise 420R (4 X UltraSPARC-II 450MHz)
> OS: Solaris 2.8

You mean Solaris 8.

>
> /var/adm/messages o/p;-
> inetd[10584]: [ID 729102 user.error] ISTATE not in environment
>
> Does the parallel running of sac deamon effects the inetd part.
>
> root   583     1  0 23:23:27 ?        0:00 /usr/lib/saf/sac -t 300
> root 17211 16187  0 06:28:05 pts/2    0:00 grep -i sac
>
> Please do reply me asap
>
> Rgds,
> Zamaron

According to SunSolve, the error message means in /etc/inetd.conf
there is a daemon located on an automounted file system; it does
not mean that inetd has a severe problem with it.

man inetd
sais that
/usr/sbin/inetd
tries to contact sac daemon, so there can be a related problem.

/usr/sbin/inetd -s
does not try to contact daemon, and

/usr/sbin/inetd -d
is for debugging.

--
Michael Tosch
IT Specialist
HP Managed Services
Technology Solutions Group
Hewlett-Packard GmbH
Phone: +49 2407 575 313
Mail: michael.tosch:hp.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS.se> wrote:[vbcol
=seagreen]
> In article <d594874e.0410150329.1400196@posting.google.com>, mdzubair940@yahoo.com
 (zamaron) writes:[/vbcol]
 
>
> You mean Solaris 8.

Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PL
S.se> wrote:
> 
>
> 
>
>
> Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
> and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.
>

Nope. "Solaris 2.8" is not valid.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> writes:

> Dave Hinz wrote: 
>
> Nope. "Solaris 2.8" is not valid.
>

Agreed.

What I hate the most when people start to extrapolate backwards: since you
have Solaris 7, 8 and 9, the previous one is, of course, Solaris 6.

Sun's marketing is really good at (and fond of) muddling the water...

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole      No it isn't.  L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Dragan Cvetkovic wrote:

> What I hate the most when people start to extrapolate backwards: since you
> have Solaris 7, 8 and 9, the previous one is, of course, Solaris 6.

Yep.  And on a related note, books from alleged Solaris experts that
are about "Solaris 9.0" [sic] also irk me.  I mean, if they can't even
get the name of the OS right, what hope have they got of getting the
rest of it accurate?

I've never heard of Solaris 9.0: the last ".0" release I'm aware of was
Solaris 2.0, which had a VERY limited distribution.  IIRC, Solaris 2.1
was the first generally available version.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, author of "Solaris Systems Programming",
published in August 2004.

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:17 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote: 
>
> Nope. "Solaris 2.8" is not valid.

Someone should tell Sun, then...
http://onesearch.sun.com/search/one...olaris%202.8%22

Dave Hinz

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

[Dave Hinz]:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>   On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:17 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote: 
>
>   Someone should tell Sun, then...
>   http://onesearch.sun.com/search/one...olaris%202.8%22[/vbco
l]

can you hold Sun accountable for what people enter in forum mesasges
and bug reports?

--
Kjetil T.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:42:17 +0000, Beardy <beardy@beardy.net> wrote:
> 
>
>
> Someone should tell Sun, then...
> http://onesearch.sun.com/search/one...olaris%202.8%22
>
> Dave Hinz
>
>

Dave, not having examined all the search results from your URL, but
using about 4 as a "representative" cross-section, all the erroneous
references to "Solaris 2.8" were made by people external to Sun, and
just found their way into archives of forums/bug databases.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Dave Hinz <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> writes:

>On 16 Oct 2004 12:55:20 GMT, Michael Tosch <eedmit@NO.eed.SPAM.ericsson.PLS
.se> wrote: 
[vbcol=seagreen] 
>
>Or SunOS 5.8 - "Solaris 8" is the marketing name for the OS, "Solaris 2.8"
>and "SunOS 5.8" are the technically accurate names.

No "Solaris 2.8" is not an accurate name; the proper name
is "Solaris 8".  "Solaris <num>" is the marketing name.  Surely
Sun marketing is allowed to chose its own name and numbering
schemes however confusing they may be?

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]