Re: Maybe a solution (Was: Re: [cobalt-users] raQ3: wrong disksize af OSrestore)

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

_ cbtrussell _ wrote:

> Jeff, are you sure about your answer? I thought a RaQ3 was constrained to a
> <32GB drive because of a hardware (BIOS) issue, in which case a RaQ4 OS
> wouldn't help. I wouldn't know for sure, I only buy 20 or 30GB drives for
> the RaQ3's I restore....

Now you've got me, Brandon <frown>...

It's a good question, and one for which I don't have an answer; I don't
think we've tried to restore a RaQ3 as a 4 with drives greater than 30
or 40 G.

Unfortunately my record keeping system stinks <frown>.

I do know we have 80 G drives in RaQ4 systems; I guess I'd better
confine my response to that.

> While it might not adhere to the absolute letter of the license agreement,
> it is quite acceptable to upgrade to the RaQ4 OS - and as I think Jeff
> mentioned, Sun has no problem with it as long as you're not a reseller
> trying to move old hardware that's effectively mislabeled. The only reason
> they care about *that* is because it would cannibalize sales of real RaQ4's,
> which are still active SKU's at Sun. Generally, if it's convenient for you
> to do so, I would do it to take advantage of the bug fixes and additional
> functionality of the RaQ4 OS.

I won't go as far as you go in saying Sun has no problem with it. 
Unless you know more than I do, and in writing.  The only thing I know
is that some Sun employees have said that Sun has no problem with it. 
Hardly the same thing.

Since your post doesn't appear to be in the same thread, I'm going to
update my original thread, to help those searching the archives.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux and Cobalt/Sun/RaQ Consulting
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 778-9980  *  fax: (702) 548-9484