[rescue] rescue Digest, Vol 90, Issue 31
Skeezics Boondoggle
skeezicsb at gmail.com
Fri May 21 03:48:56 CDT 2010
On Thu, 20 May 2010, "Jonathan J. M. Katz" wrote:
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] UnOracle patches for Solaris (Sandwich Maker)
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTilruNNdKlJP7XOmCZwdsZOMiNKxO-5GmG6LReWU at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Thompson <
> michael.99.thompson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > what's the ss5-cray interface, sbus card?
>>
>> Thinwire Ethernet.
>>
>
> I thought it was HIPPI to the CS6400 and CM5? I have cobwebs between my ears
> on that these days.
>
> mmm, CM5:
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/lnl/images/cm5.jpg
>
> I know it was 10Mbit for the E10K SSP stuff.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:49:34 -0400
> From: Nemo <cym224 at gmail.com>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Sunburst
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTik0pvFAlbuFFkeWhjMR5aWlvxg6DPofu0F_IN-a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 20 May 2010 18:13, John Lengeling <John.Lengeling at radisys.com> wrote:
>> Since we are all remembering the good old days of Sun.
>
> Here is a story of a wholly subjective comparison of Sparc versus
> Intel. I had a U10 (440 MHz and 1 GiB) running Sol 10 as well as an
> IBM PC (~500 MHz and 1 GiB) running SuSE under my desk. I was
> compiling a patched gcc 4.1.2 (for a language that used the gcc
> front-end) and needed to compile a patched gdb as well. Both were
> compiling on the U10 and I was editing with emacs as they trudged
> along. I thought: Why not try that on the PC? The dual compilation
> brought the PC to its knees with a noticeable delay between the typing
> of a character and its appearance on the screen. Compilation on the
> U10 finished long, long before that on the PC. (I know. I know. The
> PC architecture is crippled, still...)
>
> john
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:51:55 -0400
> From: Joshua Boyd <jdboyd at jdboyd.net>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] UnOracle patches for Solaris (Sandwich Maker)
> Message-ID: <20100520235155.GD10650 at jd-colo.catpro>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:43:46PM -0400, Jonathan J. M. Katz wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Thompson <
>> michael.99.thompson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > what's the ss5-cray interface, sbus card?
>> >
>> > Thinwire Ethernet.
>> >
>>
>> I thought it was HIPPI to the CS6400 and CM5? I have cobwebs between my
>> ears
>> on that these days.
>
> I thought it was a variant of JTAG to the CS6400. Google pulls up links
> to SunHelp, Wikipedia, and other places that support that.
>
> I have no clue what a CM5 used, but I doubt it was HIPPI.
>
> I also don't know what a J90 used, but since HIPPI was supposed to be an
> option, I don't think it was HIPPI. The J90 boots from an IOS (a VME
> SS5 BTW), and I suspect that the IOS netboots from the SS5.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:52:52 -0400
> From: Joshua Boyd <jdboyd at jdboyd.net>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] UnOracle patches for Solaris (Sandwich Maker)
> Message-ID: <20100520235252.GE10650 at jd-colo.catpro>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:51:55PM -0400, Joshua Boyd wrote:
>
>> I also don't know what a J90 used, but since HIPPI was supposed to be an
>> option, I don't think it was HIPPI. The J90 boots from an IOS (a VME
>> SS5 BTW), and I suspect that the IOS netboots from the SS5.
>
> BTW, there is a fairly amount of general information on J90s and CS6400s
> in the archives since list owners past and/or present have personally
> owned such machines.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:37:03 -0400
> From: Mike Wilbora <mike.wilbora at gmail.com>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] WTB: SGI (MIPS architecture) Systems
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinASOaL9r6V_E7kHspk0JHgh6Zco6SIe6vXSr3- at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Thanks for the welcome and replies. I'm in Northern Virginia, probably 2-3
> hours from Norfolk.
>
> -Mike Wilbora
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 22:02:16 -0400
> From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>
> To: rescue at sunhelp.org
> Subject: Re: [rescue] WTB: SGI (MIPS architecture) Systems
> Message-ID: <4BF5E9A8.6010007 at metrocast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 05/20/10 21:37, Mike Wilbora wrote:
>> Thanks for the welcome and replies. I'm in Northern Virginia, probably 2-3
>> hours from Norfolk.
>>
>> -Mike Wilbora
>
> That puts you right in Ethan's stomping grounds then.
>
>
> --
> Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
> alaric at caerllewys.net alaric at metrocast.net phil at co.ordinate.org
> Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
> It's not the years, it's the mileage.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
> From: adh at an.bradford.ma.us (Sandwich Maker)
> To: rescue at sunhelp.org
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Sunburst
> Message-ID: <201005210301.o4L31N209261 at an.bradford.ma.us>
>
> " From: Nemo <cym224 at gmail.com>
> "
> "
> " Here is a story of a wholly subjective comparison of Sparc versus
> " Intel. I had a U10 (440 MHz and 1 GiB) running Sol 10 as well as an
> " IBM PC (~500 MHz and 1 GiB) running SuSE under my desk. I was
> " compiling a patched gcc 4.1.2 (for a language that used the gcc
> " front-end) and needed to compile a patched gdb as well. Both were
> " compiling on the U10 and I was editing with emacs as they trudged
> " along. I thought: Why not try that on the PC? The dual compilation
> " brought the PC to its knees with a noticeable delay between the typing
> " of a character and its appearance on the screen. Compilation on the
> " U10 finished long, long before that on the PC. (I know. I know. The
> " PC architecture is crippled, still...)
>
> i'd venture to surmise that s10 is way more polished at multitasking
> than linux. s10 x86 vs. linux would be illuminating...
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay the genius nature
> internet rambler is to see what all have seen
> adh at an.bradford.ma.us and think what none thought
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 23:07:30 -0400
> From: Patrick Giagnocavo <patrick at zill.net>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Sunburst
> Message-ID: <4BF5F8F2.8080009 at zill.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Nemo wrote:
>> On 20 May 2010 18:13, John Lengeling <John.Lengeling at radisys.com> wrote:
>>> Since we are all remembering the good old days of Sun.
>>
>> Here is a story of a wholly subjective comparison of Sparc versus
>> Intel. I had a U10 (440 MHz and 1 GiB) running Sol 10 as well as an
>> IBM PC (~500 MHz and 1 GiB) running SuSE under my desk. I was
>> compiling a patched gcc 4.1.2 (for a language that used the gcc
>> front-end) and needed to compile a patched gdb as well. Both were
>> compiling on the U10 and I was editing with emacs as they trudged
>> along. I thought: Why not try that on the PC? The dual compilation
>> brought the PC to its knees with a noticeable delay between the typing
>> of a character and its appearance on the screen. Compilation on the
>> U10 finished long, long before that on the PC. (I know. I know. The
>> PC architecture is crippled, still...)
>>
>
> Actually that is an OS issue rather than hardware - I have seen
> Solaris/x86 keep chugging along under situations that would bring a
> Linux box (at least earlier kernels) to its knees.
>
> --Patrick
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 12:46:36 +0930
> From: brian_665 at internode.on.net
> To: "The Rescue List" <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] UnOracle patches for Solaris (Sandwich Maker)
> Message-ID: <28565.1274411796 at internode.on.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Unfortunately it is substantially cheaper. The normal solution in the
> PC world is to simply throw more and more CPUs and CPU power against
> the problem in order to manage it. I am presently overseeing the
> decommissioning of all my employer's Sun Sparc servers and seeing them
> replaced with crappy windoze ones. Their argument is that as it is so
> hard to find Unix sysadmins, it is better to utilise windoze and
> employ windoze drones. They don't seem to appreciate that in doing so,
> they are essentially setting their infrastructure back 10 years as far
> as processing goes. Nor do they understand that if they create a
> demand for Unix sysadmins they will find more appearing to fill it.
> :-(
>
> Sun, ooops, Oracle of course does not help matters when they charge
> four to five times the cost of those seductively cheaper i64 servers
> that are dangled in front of the boss's eyes all the time.
>
> Sorry, just having a bit of a whinge, thats all. :-/
>
> cheers
>
> Brian Ross
>
> On Fri 21/05/10 07:51 , Joshua Boyd jdboyd at jdboyd.net sent:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 07:43:46PM -0400, Jonathan J. M. Katz wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Michael Thompson
> michael.99.thompson at gmail.com [1]> wrote:
> >
> > > > what's the ss5-cray interface, sbus card?
> > >
> > > Thinwire Ethernet.
> > >
> >
> > I thought it was HIPPI to the CS6400 and CM5? I have cobwebs
> between my ears
> > on that these days.
>
> I thought it was a variant of JTAG to the CS6400. Google pulls up
> links
> to SunHelp, Wikipedia, and other places that support that.
>
> I have no clue what a CM5 used, but I doubt it was HIPPI.
>
> I also don't know what a J90 used, but since HIPPI was supposed to be
> an
> option, I don't think it was HIPPI. The J90 boots from an IOS (a VME
> SS5 BTW), and I suspect that the IOS netboots from the SS5.
> _______________________________________________
> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue [2]
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:michael.99.thompson at gmail.com
> [2] http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:32:28 -0700
> From: James C <james at frantech.ca>
> To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [rescue] Sunburst
> Message-ID: <4BF5FECC.5070502 at frantech.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 05/20/2010 08:01 PM, Sandwich Maker wrote:
>> " From: Nemo<cym224 at gmail.com>
>> "
>> "
>> " Here is a story of a wholly subjective comparison of Sparc versus
>> " Intel. I had a U10 (440 MHz and 1 GiB) running Sol 10 as well as an
>> " IBM PC (~500 MHz and 1 GiB) running SuSE under my desk. I was
>> " compiling a patched gcc 4.1.2 (for a language that used the gcc
>> " front-end) and needed to compile a patched gdb as well. Both were
>> " compiling on the U10 and I was editing with emacs as they trudged
>> " along. I thought: Why not try that on the PC? The dual compilation
>> " brought the PC to its knees with a noticeable delay between the typing
>> " of a character and its appearance on the screen. Compilation on the
>> " U10 finished long, long before that on the PC. (I know. I know. The
>> " PC architecture is crippled, still...)
>>
>> i'd venture to surmise that s10 is way more polished at multitasking
>> than linux. s10 x86 vs. linux would be illuminating...
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Andrew Hay the genius nature
>> internet rambler is to see what all have seen
>> adh at an.bradford.ma.us and think what none thought
>> _______________________________________________
>> rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>>
>>
>
> A 440 MHz Sparc is _far_ superior to any 500 MHz PC. I bet you could
> pull off gcc+gdb compiles and emacs editing on any `modern' x86
> workstation.
>
> --
> --------------------------------
> James C.<james[at]frantech.ca>
> Frantech Solutions Head of Staff
> +1 (937) 839 2253
> http://www.frantech.ca/
> http://www.sokudo.us/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rescue maillist - rescue at sunhelp.org
> http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>
>
> End of rescue Digest, Vol 90, Issue 31
> **************************************
More information about the rescue
mailing list