Re: sun4m and 2.4.x revisited
Simon Read wrote:
> > If it's an important part of your network, it doesn't seem to make
> > sense to risk significant down time and/or admin work to switch to
> > 2.4.
> Three reasons:
> My network is not a production network.
> > If it was a small amount of extra work, it would be done long before
> > now. I even compiled a few myself (had to fix a bunch of header
> > file problems) but they wouldn't boot. I've heard that very
> > recently the vger cvs tree has code that will boot and run but is
> > not ready for prime time.
> I don't believe this is necessarily the case. I still don't
> understand what the problem is, and therefore what work would need to
> be done to fix it. It honestly surprises me that it is easier to port
> a 32 bit kernel to a 64 bit machine than it is to a 32 bit one.
> For example, I don't understand the 'provenance' of the SPARC kernel
> code we use.
It is the case in this case. The thing is, sparc32 hardware is not
new-and-groovy. It's old and slow. People doing development on
this stuff understandably want to do it on machines that are fast
and young. Even ultra1's and ultra2's are 4+ years old, and they're
the slowest of the bunch, but still much faster than hypersparcs
even. If you were doing the development, which would you choose to
It's not a 32 bit kernel. It depends heavily on the arch. sparc64,
alpha, ia64 have a lot of 64 bit-ness in them.