Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!hamblin.math.byu.edu!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison)
Date: 18 Jan 1996 06:45:27 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 101
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <4dkqa7$27e@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4dbun0$j2f@park.uvsc.edu> <4dg90i$6le@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <4dh42v$rnv@park.uvsc.edu> <4djgkh$kgn@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2020 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2177 comp.unix.solaris:57586 comp.unix.aix:68998
fwp@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) wrote:
] Fact: 4.x dropped support for 68k and x86 some time ago. You won't find
] support for either architecture in 4.1.3 or 4.1.4 (the last release
] that supported the 68k was 4.1.1_U1, I'm not sure about the 386i).
I don't deny this. I submit that this was Sun's choice, not a
sudden failure of all 68k and x86 code to operate after a certain
date.
Do you deny that ISP startups will typically use Intel hardware
or use used non-Intel hardware?
Cheap is a factor.
In the context of an ISP startup, OS support for older hardware
is a factor because cheap is a factor.
] Fact: A major reason given for dropping support for these architectures
] was dropped from later 4.x releases was the difficulty of
] maintaining the 4.x code base for them. 4.x source wasn't
] written with the portability constraints needed to support
] several architectures from the same code base. Maintaining
] multiple architectures in a practical fashion would have required
] a major rewrite of the 4.x code. There is every reason to expect
] that such a rewrite would have engendered many of the same
] performance problems and bugs that existed in earlier releases of
] 5.x.
I don't deny that was the reason given. I do question the
basis for that reason.. My statements were in support of my
posted statement:
| 4) Available for Motorolla based hadware so a heterogeneous
| environment can provide the user with a near-identical
| interface acress platforms (Intel isn't an argument here;
| remember the 386i?).
Specifically, I was addressing the issue of why 68k hardware
support was an advantage for 4.x over 5.x.
I believe this has been adequately covered elsewhere.
] Fact: Even when it did support intel, 4.x "ran on x86" only in the
] sense that it ran on Sun's 386i platform. You couldn't by a PC
] and run 4.x on it. 5.x does, however, support commodity PC
] hardware. Claiming that 4.x x86 support and 5.x x86 support are
] anywhere near equivalent is silly.
There was a conscious choice to not develop the necessary
drivers. It was certainly *possible* for it to run on
commodity x86 rather than Sun hardware.
] > ] >5) Compiles most net sources "out of the box" without
] > ] > modification or use of a compatability environment.
] > ]
] > ] Is true for Solaris 2.x for most non-ancient net software.
] > ] It's even more true in Solaris 2.5.
] >
] > Because of the compatability environment.
]
] No. I have a wide variety of net source compiled under 5.x. None
] required the compatibility environment (I know because the system
] I compile most of the code on doesn't have the compatibility environment
] installed).
I don't have any way of personally testing compilability without
the compatability environment installed. I would be very
interested in the results of a "compilability cookoff" for
the contents of the comp*sources* archives.
It is my understanding that most of the code in the source
archives requires BSD interfaces and/or libraries.
Clearly, someone would have to have a lot of hardware to do
this type of test.
[ ... rancor and my rancorous response that I was going to post ... ]
Can we go back to discussing the subject line instead of making
me defend tangential discussions?
Dan Stromberg has a couple of nice points potentially in favor
of Solaris as an ISP platform; unfortunately, they came at the
very end of a 2297 line, 100k "discussion". I can't (or rather
won't) post them without his permission, since the exchange was
private email.
With his permission (or posting of the points), we can pick
up there.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.