Once can, of course, run Solaris 10 in a guest domain or a Solaris
zone, and keep 32-bit applications.
On 1/12/20 2:52 PM, jaybraun2.0@gmail.com wrote:
Once can, of course, run Solaris 10 in a guest domain or a Solaris
zone, and keep 32-bit applications.
Won't the zone have the same Solaris 11 kernel, thus the same
limitations of said kernel?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
I was told that Solaris 11 does not support 32-bit applications. I am curious as to whether this is possibly a mistaken impression, and perhaps also why this is the case.
Once can, of course, run Solaris 10 in a guest domain or a Solaris zone, and keep 32-bit applications.
The intent is to port all 32-bit apps to 64-bit, but my concern is one of timing/dependencies in migrating to Solaris 11.
I was told that Solaris 11 does not support 32-bit applications. I am curious as to whether this is possibly a mistaken impression, and perhaps also why this is the case.
Once can, of course, run Solaris 10 in a guest domain or a Solaris zone, and keep 32-bit applications.
The intent is to port all 32-bit apps to 64-bit, but my concern is one of timing/dependencies in migrating to Solaris 11.
I was told that Solaris 11 does not support 32-bit applications. I am curious as to whether this is possibly a mistaken impression, and perhaps also why this is the case.
Thanks, everyone. I've implemented/led 64-bit ports on Linux for the sake of increased virtual address space, and we left some programs as 32-bit because address space was not a consideration for those applications. So, this claim seemed to have beena misconception -- or maybe I misunderstood the person to whom I was talking. I'm going to assume no FUD was intended.
The link that Bruce provided mentioned the "Year 2038" issue that plagues all applications using 32-bit time with 1/1/1970 as the beginning of the epoch. But how are Solaris users dealing with the "Year 2034" issue of suspension of Oracle support?That might be a new topic, so please excuse the digression.
On 13/01/2020 12:19, Jay Braun wrote:been a misconception -- or maybe I misunderstood the person to whom I was talking. I'm going to assume no FUD was intended.
Thanks, everyone. I've implemented/led 64-bit ports on Linux for the sake of increased virtual address space, and we left some programs as 32-bit because address space was not a consideration for those applications. So, this claim seemed to have
That might be a new topic, so please excuse the digression.
The link that Bruce provided mentioned the "Year 2038" issue that plagues all applications using 32-bit time with 1/1/1970 as the beginning of the epoch. But how are Solaris users dealing with the "Year 2034" issue of suspension of Oracle support?
I'll be retired (or dead) by then, so SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) :-)
YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1.co.uk> writes:been a misconception -- or maybe I misunderstood the person to whom I was talking. I'm going to assume no FUD was intended.
On 13/01/2020 12:19, Jay Braun wrote:
Thanks, everyone. I've implemented/led 64-bit ports on Linux for the sake of increased virtual address space, and we left some programs as 32-bit because address space was not a consideration for those applications. So, this claim seemed to have
That might be a new topic, so please excuse the digression.
The link that Bruce provided mentioned the "Year 2038" issue that plagues all applications using 32-bit time with 1/1/1970 as the beginning of the epoch. But how are Solaris users dealing with the "Year 2034" issue of suspension of Oracle support?
I'll be retired (or dead) by then, so SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) :-)
Or $$$ as consultant?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 236:58:00 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,839 |