Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Michelle Konzack wrote: On the other side, I will leafe in short France and then i will have NO access to Electricity except a bunch (~42) of photovoltaik panels of 75W and a 4kW Bio-Fuel-Generator A 1500Mhz Via C7 (x86 32 bits), a GiB of RAM, a pair of 2.5 hard drives and a slim DVD-burner will happily work with less than 60W, and will run circles around UltraSPARC I and II cpus, let alone SuperSPARC. And will allow for USB, IEEE1394, and other recent stuff to be plugged in. (Anyone know of a VME USB card for my 4/330 ? :-) As an added bonus, AES encryption (ssl, ssh, etc.) will come for almost free, it's implemented in hardware. If you want HW RAID1 instead of SW, an old 3ware PCI RAID1 card for PATA should still fit inside 80W, 100W top. BTW, maybe this part of the discussion should be moved out of debian-sparc now ? It has strayed far from the topic for the list. -- Romain Dolbeau [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Michelle Konzack a écrit : Am 2007-07-24 16:16:18, schrieb Aurelien Jarno: Michelle Konzack a écrit : And then, there is definitivly a problem to get 32Bit Machines in Strasbourg. All Computer-Stores aelling only those 64Bit CPU's. Do you now those 64-bit CPU's are also able to run 32-bit OS? But WHA#Y should I pay 100 Euro for a CPU if a 32Bit Sempron with 2400MHz wil do the job twice? And, Mainboards for 64Bit CPUs are three times more expensive I advise you to go to another computer store, as this one is clearly swindling you. You can get a boxed Sempron 3000+ in France for less than 35 euros... And a mainboard for less than 55 euros, so if it is three times more expensive, I wonder when you were able to find brand new mainboards for 32-bit CPU for lower than 20 euros... -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
## ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION I am currently NOT in Strasbourg because I have the last 7 days of my military service and can not reply in short delays. ## Am 2007-07-18 01:27:56, schrieb andrew holway: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? Hello, I know many enterprises wich are using older sparc32 as Servers and those Enterprises are not located in the 5% of rich countries in the world. I know some enterprises which run SS10 like a HiFi-Rack with attached Raid-5 Arrays of thirty 18 GByte Drives... Nice, because a SS10/20 will not die in Morocco, where the environement temperature is 20 degree higher then in Western-Europe. Even some of my AS400 (4 and 16 CPU machines) are working there without any problems... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Am 2007-07-18 15:26:08, schrieb Chris Newport: 32 bit Sparc systems draw far LESS power than modern machines. For example, the PSU in my SS10 is rated at 60 watts MAX. In reality it sits there as a firewall drawing around 28 watts (measured). I have six SS10 and one SS20 running here, and the consumation is environement 310 Watt. Supported by a APC Smart-UPS 1000VA. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Am 2007-07-19 12:57:41, schrieb Austin Denyer: When they say sitting there doing nothing what I think they mean is sitting there at 2% load compared to working at 80% load. For example, an old SS5 running as a firewall. Replacing it with a P4 would gain you nothing but an increased power bill. Some SS10/20 as Web- or Print-Servers... I would not use a SS5/10/20 as workstation which mean, I am always less expensive as with a new Computer where the smalles one is a 2800MHz Machine And then, there is definitivly a problem to get 32Bit Machines in Strasbourg. All Computer-Stores aelling only those 64Bit CPU's. Hell, my new Devel-Station (Dual-Opteron, 32 GByte of memory and 8 SCSI-Drives) is consuming nearly 600 Watt... (the machine has two 600Watt redunant Power-Supplys) And, since it need over 30 seconds to wake up from the SLEEP mode, I can not save any energy. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
## ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION I am currently NOT in Strasbourg because I have the last 7 days of my military service and can not reply in short delays. ## Hello Joey, Am 2007-07-19 13:52:45, schrieb Joey Hess: You know, there are new machines that use significantly less power even when fully loaded than old kit, and _probably_ have enough resources for whatever you're using it for. The $90 arm nslu2 comes to mind.. Currently I am tickering with a NSLU2 and some other arm7, arm9 and mips to find the right machine for my need... But unfortunatly they have no VGA out or the possibility to put one of those highly compacted Video-Chips onto it. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Am 2007-07-19 20:10:01, schrieb andrew holway: This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. And if you are working professionel, your whole Service is there, where the sun does not shine... It is a responsibility that we must all face to consolidate our computing to use the smallest amount of resources. Not true, since I must work with the biggest ammount of security. My three Sun Blade (32 CPUs, 64 GByte of memory, 96 HDDs) are consuming over 4 kW/hour and they are located in Paris/France, Offenburg/Germany and Basel/Swiss. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/6192519367100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Michelle Konzack a écrit : Am 2007-07-19 12:57:41, schrieb Austin Denyer: When they say sitting there doing nothing what I think they mean is sitting there at 2% load compared to working at 80% load. For example, an old SS5 running as a firewall. Replacing it with a P4 would gain you nothing but an increased power bill. Some SS10/20 as Web- or Print-Servers... I would not use a SS5/10/20 as workstation which mean, I am always less expensive as with a new Computer where the smalles one is a 2800MHz Machine And then, there is definitivly a problem to get 32Bit Machines in Strasbourg. All Computer-Stores aelling only those 64Bit CPU's. Do you now those 64-bit CPU's are also able to run 32-bit OS? -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Michelle Konzack a écrit : My three Sun Blade (32 CPUs, 64 GByte of memory, 96 HDDs) are consuming over 4 kW/hour and they are located in Paris/France, Offenburg/Germany and Basel/Swiss. And those are located in the 5% of rich countries that are using far more energy than the 95% of the others. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:45:41PM +, Jordan Bettis wrote: Also I think the production costs of a new machine are often far more important than energy use. FWIW I decided to google to see if I could find stuff to back up this claim. I found plenty: http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/feature_pol.html?id=c373e9ffbf73ffac8f6a17245d830100 : Computing equipment differs significantly from many other consumer : products because the vast majority of the energy it uses over its : lifetime 81%, according to Williams' calculations is required during : the manufacturing process. : In this context, extending the lifetime of computers becomes : important. Reselling or upgrading computers uses 20 times less energy : than recycling, Williams explains. Other studies have shown that many : computers are shipped to the developing world, where they are recycled : in environmentally destructive ways (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, : 52A-53A), such as open acid baths, he says. http://update.unu.edu/archive/issue31_5.htm : While computers become smaller and more powerful, their environmental : impacts are increasing. The materials- and energy-intense production : process, greater adoption of PCs worldwide, plus the rapid rate at : which they are discarded for newer machines, add up to growing : mountains of garbage and increasingly serious contributions to : resource depletion, environmental pollution and climate change. http://www.it-environment.org/compenv.html : Manufacturing computers is materials intensive; the total fossil fuels : used to make one desktop computer weigh over 240 kilograms, some 10 : times the weight of the computer itself. This is very high compared to : many other goods: For an automobile or refrigerator, for example, the : weight of fossil fuels used for production is roughly equal to their : weights. : Extending the usable life is very effective for reducing all types of : burdens, but relatively few older PCs are being resold, refurbished or : recycled -- most are stored in warehouses, basements, or closets and : eventually end up in landfills. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20021112-961.html : Many people are concerned about computer's power consumption and : minimizing the fossil fuels used to keep a system running. It may turn : out more environmental damage is done in building the computer than in : its lifetime of use. Cheers, -- Jordan Bettis -- Chicago Il. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? Somewhat. There is also the necessity that some organizations don't have an IT budget, and have to take donations, or make the best with what they have. SS20's do a good enough job serving up web-pages and handling some simple database work. Perfectly fine for a church or a school that doesn't get Microsoft donations. Sparc hardware is also pretty well designed (though kinda a pain in the butt to work with, compared to a brand new Dell and such). Thing is, I still am using the same Sparc 5's, 10's and 20's that I was using in 1994, and they have been running with the original parts, even hard-drives. Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: Its only wasteful if they end up in a landfill. If they could be recycled? Another important factor to consider is power consumption. If you have several V8's (circa early 90's?) running I shudder think how much juice they draw. That is the true waste. My Sparc Station 5 takes less power than my Pentium IV or AMD X2 machines. (400+ Watt power supplies and all). Pretty sure that my SS5 has a Sub 80W power-supply in it. (I would have to shut it off and open the lead-lined case to check). Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Steven Ringwald wrote: andrew holway wrote: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? Somewhat. There is also the necessity that some organizations don't have an IT budget, and have to take donations, or make the best with what they have. SS20's do a good enough job serving up web-pages and handling some simple database work. Perfectly fine for a church or a school that doesn't get Microsoft donations. Sparc hardware is also pretty well designed (though kinda a pain in the butt to work with, compared to a brand new Dell and such). Thing is, I still am using the same Sparc 5's, 10's and 20's that I was using in 1994, and they have been running with the original parts, even hard-drives. Steve please turn off your read receipt reuest when posting to mail lists -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Jordan Bettis wrote: Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing icons and semi-transparent window edges. There are two separate things to take into account here. The first is the quiescent consumption, I admit to not having values from a number of systems so for the sake of argument I'll agree that this is generally increasing. However I'd suggest that if a computer is sitting there doing noting you'd be better looking for ways to power it off or use a shared computing resource- Sunray or whatever. The second thing- where I do have numbers to back up my argument- is how much energy is consumed to perform a unit of work. My figures, by and large, show that while running a torture test a range of computers consume between 60 and 550W, with no overwhelming correlation with their age. On the other hand the time to complete a unit of work has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, which leads me to suggest that by and large the energy consumed per unit of work has also dropped significantly. Looking at two extreme cases: SPARCstation 20, 2 jobs, 130W (175VA) 8m12.582s 1,068 Compaq AP550 1GHz, 768Mb, 8 jobs, 135W (180VA) 0m42.730 96 That last column is W-min to complete a given workload, selecting the best (fastest) figures by splitting it into a number of jobs. So assuming that the quiescent consumption is equal you're /far/ better off with a newer system since even if it consumes substantially more power while working hard it does so for far less time. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Jordan Bettis wrote: Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing icons and semi-transparent window edges. There are two separate things to take into account here. The first is the quiescent consumption, I admit to not having values from a number of systems so for the sake of argument I'll agree that this is generally increasing. However I'd suggest that if a computer is sitting there doing noting you'd be better looking for ways to power it off or use a shared computing resource- Sunray or whatever. When they say sitting there doing nothing what I think they mean is sitting there at 2% load compared to working at 80% load. For example, an old SS5 running as a firewall. Replacing it with a P4 would gain you nothing but an increased power bill. The second thing- where I do have numbers to back up my argument- is how much energy is consumed to perform a unit of work. My figures, by and large, show that while running a torture test a range of computers consume between 60 and 550W, with no overwhelming correlation with their age. On the other hand the time to complete a unit of work has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, which leads me to suggest that by and large the energy consumed per unit of work has also dropped significantly. Looking at two extreme cases: SPARCstation 20, 2 jobs, 130W (175VA)8m12.582s1,068 Compaq AP550 1GHz, 768Mb, 8 jobs, 135W (180VA)0m42.730 96 That last column is W-min to complete a given workload, selecting the best (fastest) figures by splitting it into a number of jobs. So assuming that the quiescent consumption is equal you're /far/ better off with a newer system since even if it consumes substantially more power while working hard it does so for far less time. Again, that's fine if you have more work for it to do. I would gain no benefit by replacing my SS5 as it works just as well for the task in hand as it did when it was new. A new machine would just be spinning it's wheels 98% of the time, using more electricity, which in turn generates heat, which makes my A/C work harder, which uses more electricity... Analogy: An old grandmother drives an old sub-compact. Sure she could get more groceries in an SUV, but she doesn't want/need more room for groceries. So why pay more for something she doesn't need? Regards, Ozz. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Austin Denyer wrote: Again, that's fine if you have more work for it to do. I would gain no benefit by replacing my SS5 as it works just as well for the task in hand as it did when it was new. A new machine would just be spinning it's wheels 98% of the time, using more electricity, which in turn generates heat, which makes my A/C work harder, which uses more electricity... You know, there are new machines that use significantly less power even when fully loaded than old kit, and _probably_ have enough resources for whatever you're using it for. The $90 arm nslu2 comes to mind.. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. It is a responsibility that we must all face to consolidate our computing to use the smallest amount of resources. Andrew On 19/07/07, Mark Morgan Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordan Bettis wrote: Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing icons and semi-transparent window edges. There are two separate things to take into account here. The first is the quiescent consumption, I admit to not having values from a number of systems so for the sake of argument I'll agree that this is generally increasing. However I'd suggest that if a computer is sitting there doing noting you'd be better looking for ways to power it off or use a shared computing resource- Sunray or whatever. The second thing- where I do have numbers to back up my argument- is how much energy is consumed to perform a unit of work. My figures, by and large, show that while running a torture test a range of computers consume between 60 and 550W, with no overwhelming correlation with their age. On the other hand the time to complete a unit of work has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, which leads me to suggest that by and large the energy consumed per unit of work has also dropped significantly. Looking at two extreme cases: SPARCstation 20, 2 jobs, 130W (175VA) 8m12.582s 1,068 Compaq AP550 1GHz, 768Mb, 8 jobs, 135W (180VA) 0m42.730 96 That last column is W-min to complete a given workload, selecting the best (fastest) figures by splitting it into a number of jobs. So assuming that the quiescent consumption is equal you're /far/ better off with a newer system since even if it consumes substantially more power while working hard it does so for far less time. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Retiring the sparc32 port
And a single point of failure? On 19/07/07, andrew holway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. It is a responsibility that we must all face to consolidate our computing to use the smallest amount of resources. Andrew On 19/07/07, Mark Morgan Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jordan Bettis wrote: Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing icons and semi-transparent window edges. There are two separate things to take into account here. The first is the quiescent consumption, I admit to not having values from a number of systems so for the sake of argument I'll agree that this is generally increasing. However I'd suggest that if a computer is sitting there doing noting you'd be better looking for ways to power it off or use a shared computing resource- Sunray or whatever. The second thing- where I do have numbers to back up my argument- is how much energy is consumed to perform a unit of work. My figures, by and large, show that while running a torture test a range of computers consume between 60 and 550W, with no overwhelming correlation with their age. On the other hand the time to complete a unit of work has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years, which leads me to suggest that by and large the energy consumed per unit of work has also dropped significantly. Looking at two extreme cases: SPARCstation 20, 2 jobs, 130W (175VA) 8m12.582s 1,068 Compaq AP550 1GHz, 768Mb, 8 jobs, 135W (180VA) 0m42.730 96 That last column is W-min to complete a given workload, selecting the best (fastest) figures by splitting it into a number of jobs. So assuming that the quiescent consumption is equal you're /far/ better off with a newer system since even if it consumes substantially more power while working hard it does so for far less time. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. Putting all your eggs in one basket like that is fine as long as you have a good enough basket, or your services are non-critical. Otherwise, if the basket breaks you're potentially in for a whole world of hurt. Regards, Austin. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Nope, laptops can virtualize too :-), tho you right. keeping systems robust is a heavy consideration. All I'm suggesting is that the environmental impact of the power consumption of all the bits of hardware at the home and office should be considered. There is a lot of needless waste. Andy On 19/07/07, Austin Denyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: andrew holway wrote: This is exactly the point I was trying to get across. Assuming your not using vista there is no reason why you need more than one computer. What are these old systems doing for you? a bit of dns? Maybe some kind of webserver? mail? I have all these thing running in virtual environments on 1 PC which I also use as my workstation. Putting all your eggs in one basket like that is fine as long as you have a good enough basket, or your services are non-critical. Otherwise, if the basket breaks you're potentially in for a whole world of hurt. Regards, Austin. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
--Andrew == andrew holway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew is this hobbyism? i guess it could be classed as such. personally, i have several SPARC8 machines which continue to work exactly as they did when new. they were adequate for their purpose then, and continue to be so now. i'd prefer not to discard and replace them simply because there's a 'newer model' available. however, it would prefer that they were kept current with security patches. i'd be ok running a 2.4 kernel, or even a 2.2 kernel, but the way free software works out, you basically need to be running the current release to get fixes, and by dependency chains, that ends up meaning the current kernel. yes, i could replace them with a P3 with 10 times the memory for under $100, but it strikes me as wasteful. of course, the counter argument is that it's wasteful to expend the effort to support a handful of older machines. and i can see why people prefer not to do so. it'd be nice if there were enough folks wanting to continue to use their older gear to keep it alive, but perhaps that's not the case. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Its only wasteful if they end up in a landfill. If they could be recycled? Another important factor to consider is power consumption. If you have several V8's (circa early 90's?) running I shudder think how much juice they draw. That is the true waste. Ask yourself, what is the carbon footprint of my computing platforms? Old gear becomes redundant not only because of processing/space but also processing/power consumption. Oh I can afford it just isn't a valid excuse any more. Least not in the UK, were about to start putting SUV drivers up against the wall. :-) Andy On 18/07/07, David Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Andrew == andrew holway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew is this hobbyism? i guess it could be classed as such. personally, i have several SPARC8 machines which continue to work exactly as they did when new. they were adequate for their purpose then, and continue to be so now. i'd prefer not to discard and replace them simply because there's a 'newer model' available. however, it would prefer that they were kept current with security patches. i'd be ok running a 2.4 kernel, or even a 2.2 kernel, but the way free software works out, you basically need to be running the current release to get fixes, and by dependency chains, that ends up meaning the current kernel. yes, i could replace them with a P3 with 10 times the memory for under $100, but it strikes me as wasteful. of course, the counter argument is that it's wasteful to expend the effort to support a handful of older machines. and i can see why people prefer not to do so. it'd be nice if there were enough folks wanting to continue to use their older gear to keep it alive, but perhaps that's not the case. d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: Its only wasteful if they end up in a landfill. If they could be recycled? Another important factor to consider is power consumption. If you have several V8's (circa early 90's?) running I shudder think how much juice they draw. 32 bit Sparc systems draw far LESS power than modern machines. For example, the PSU in my SS10 is rated at 60 watts MAX. In reality it sits there as a firewall drawing around 28 watts (measured). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 03:00:28PM +0100, andrew holway wrote: Its only wasteful if they end up in a landfill. If they could be recycled? Another important factor to consider is power consumption. If you have several V8's (circa early 90's?) running I shudder think how much juice they draw. That is the true waste. Ask yourself, what is the carbon footprint of my computing platforms? Old gear becomes redundant not only because of processing/space but also processing/power consumption. Old micro machines are only power inefficient on a performance/energy ratio, and that's only significant if you need more performance. If you buy a new machine and end up using more power overall but are doing the same job at 2% capacity, that's not a net power savings. Like Chris said, new machines generally draw a lot more power overall. My Ultra 5 that I use as my desktop can draw 200W max, and probably doesn't really draw much over 100W total. Compare that to a typical modern PC desktop that has a 400W supply in it and probably draws well over 200W, mostly to power a GPU so it can display silly bouncing icons and semi-transparent window edges. Also I think the production costs of a new machine are often far more important than energy use. I've read it takes a ton and a half of raw materials to produce one new PC-class computer. Sending an old machine to a recycler may be feel-good, but the only thing really usefully recyclable in the machine is the metal of the case. There are also some trace precious metals in the components that can be extracted using a very dirty process, usually in polluted third-world cottege industry operations that make Alang look like not a bad place to work. -- Jordan Bettis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:34:03AM +0100, Chris Newport wrote: Why does a Linux distribution need the latest bleeding edge kernel ? With no new hardware to support it should be easy to put together a distribution with the last known good kernel and the latest applications. Unfortunately parts of user space often end up depending upon features only availiable in newer kernels. For example, one of the current pressures on less actively maintained ports is the lack of ongoing support for the old LinuxThreads implementation of POSIX threads. The new NPTL implementation requires kernel support which was introduced with 2.6. The installer has similar issues and even applications that you might not think of as being particularly low level can end up wanting newer system calls - squid and postfix both want epoll, for example. It probably is actually less work to get a newer kernel running than to keep user space support for older kernels. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? Cheers, Andy moonet.co.uk On 17/07/07, Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 10:34:03AM +0100, Chris Newport wrote: Why does a Linux distribution need the latest bleeding edge kernel ? With no new hardware to support it should be easy to put together a distribution with the last known good kernel and the latest applications. Unfortunately parts of user space often end up depending upon features only availiable in newer kernels. For example, one of the current pressures on less actively maintained ports is the lack of ongoing support for the old LinuxThreads implementation of POSIX threads. The new NPTL implementation requires kernel support which was introduced with 2.6. The installer has similar issues and even applications that you might not think of as being particularly low level can end up wanting newer system calls - squid and postfix both want epoll, for example. It probably is actually less work to get a newer kernel running than to keep user space support for older kernels. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUBRp0TuA2erOLNe+68AQL7swP/VmtOoikd9ZA40d1RjAZndbSeU8WpMy9r wja3scF0AJZEcwBeFJqtciNeDFyf5sHE/m1ma/6uNf27fESSJVg2FT93EFwMwPhe p0fSNgRyGq33fNxqJMfvzF+L/pn8h3Q4D11Zau5UfWKd5i3B70mpESQyQqLUty1x T3LaQMta7R4= =lTTA -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:27:56AM +0100, andrew holway wrote: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? That's a comment that really shouldn't be dignified with an answer any more thorough than Please see http://www.debian.org/; : Yes, we all pretty much know that nothing spectacularly bad will happen if sparc32 is relegated to the archive, but we're a project of hobbyists and volunteers who generally tend to take care of our tools, even if they become old and scruffy and you can't make a profit out of them. It's perfectly natural for people to want to keep sparc32. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, ever so (in)appropriately - we're engineers, not salespeople. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On 18/07/07, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:27:56AM +0100, andrew holway wrote: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? That's a comment that really shouldn't be dignified with an answer any more thorough than Please see http://www.debian.org/; : Yes, we all pretty much know that nothing spectacularly bad will happen if sparc32 is relegated to the archive, but we're a project of hobbyists and volunteers who generally tend to take care of our tools, even if they become old and scruffy and you can't make a profit out of them. It's perfectly natural for people to want to keep sparc32. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, ever so (in)appropriately - we're engineers, not salespeople. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fwd: Retiring the sparc32 port
Maybe its the maintanance of older technologies that gives Debian and the other Linux/GNU distributions out there their inherent value. I'm quite new to open source so please excuse my comments. I'm still to fully comprehend the philosophy and the technology. Its quite far removed from anything I have experienced before. On 18/07/07, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:27:56AM +0100, andrew holway wrote: I'm sure that this will be an unwelcome comment but I'm just wondering why there is all this interest in this, and please excuse my naivety, relativity ancient technology. Considering the commercial market is moving very quickly away from 32bit arch and Debians obvious interest in remaining a competitive commercial contender, what is the interest? is this hobbyism? That's a comment that really shouldn't be dignified with an answer any more thorough than Please see http://www.debian.org/; : Yes, we all pretty much know that nothing spectacularly bad will happen if sparc32 is relegated to the archive, but we're a project of hobbyists and volunteers who generally tend to take care of our tools, even if they become old and scruffy and you can't make a profit out of them. It's perfectly natural for people to want to keep sparc32. To paraphrase Dr. McCoy, ever so (in)appropriately - we're engineers, not salespeople. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) And LEON processor ? A sparc V8 that can be written in a FPGA ? It runs with Linux. Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 07:39:31PM -0400, Robert Reif wrote: just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) Aren't the Sun Rays which are still shipping using microSparc IIep chips? The clients themselves? Has anyone actually tried to boot anything else on them other than their own integrated OS? I imagine it would require a fair bit of hacking, having to disassemble them? And one would still have to reimplement the server side of things and/or the protocol they use to communicate. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Retiring the sparc32 port
I think that this seems like a very sensible way forward. The idea of letting Sparc64 evolve without worrying about sparc (32) is a good one. I think having a specific sparc (32) port is the way forward. Thanks, Chris. On 16/07/07, David Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --Steven == Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steven I joined the sparc32 list with the intention of Steven contributing. My surprise, and disappointment, is because Steven the first message that I saw regarding the architecture is Steven that it is going to be retired. i'm not familiar with how Debian does these things, but here's an idea of what i'd like to see happen: - SPARC32 support for lenny is formally stated to be dropped, pending for 6 months. this is *kinda* a replay of the last 4 months, but with an additional level of formality - those who wish to contribute to the SPARC64 port can thus use the v9 code generation options, etc - those who care about continued support for SPARC32 need to form a community, learn/build the required skills to maintain the critical components, being at least gcc and the Linux kernel. i imagine this will require some wiki space, a separate mailing list, and (critically) some reasonablly capable hardware for build daemons. - in 6 months, we review the situation: if the kernel and GCC/SPARC32 have attracted a sufficiently capable and committed (time-wise) team, and suitable hardware is available, we petition for the dropped, pending status to be revoked. i think at that point we'd require a separate SPARC32 platform. i'm not sure how that would be viewed by the wider Debian community, which i'd imagine is wary of additional platforms. alternatively, the SPARC32 port could operate on a semi-official basis, much like the x86-64 port did prior to etch? i don't think it's fair that those in favour of continuing SPARC32 support hold back the SPARC64 effort. those of us who care about SPARC32 need a chance to get organised, and take over the maintenance of the key components required. thoughts? d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
BERTRAND Joël wrote: andrew holway wrote: just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) And LEON processor ? A sparc V8 that can be written in a FPGA ? It runs with Linux. Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Why does a Linux distribution need the latest bleeding edge kernel ? With no new hardware to support it should be easy to put together a distribution with the last known good kernel and the latest applications. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Chris Newport wrote: BERTRAND Joël wrote: andrew holway wrote: just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) And LEON processor ? A sparc V8 that can be written in a FPGA ? It runs with Linux. Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Why does a Linux distribution need the latest bleeding edge kernel ? With no new hardware to support it should be easy to put together a distribution with the last known good kernel and the latest applications. The main trouble is there is no good kernel since 2.2 release. I use a lot of sparc32 hardware and : - 2.4 randomly crashes with watchdog reset OBP message (on all SS20 I use) ; - 2.6 is more stable, but only UP. SMP spinlock are broken (and I'm looking for volunteers to help me) ; - HyperSPARC support is broken or not usable (I have tried to boot a 2.4.32 with 4*RT626...) on 2.4 _and_ 2.6. That being said, if we work on a distribution with the last known good kernel, we can immediatly drop this distribution. To be alive, kernel has to be alive ! JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Chris Newport wrote: And LEON processor ? A sparc V8 that can be written in a FPGA ? It runs with Linux. Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Why does a Linux distribution need the latest bleeding edge kernel ? With no new hardware to support it should be easy to put together a distribution with the last known good kernel and the latest applications. If Gaisler Research want to ensure that the kernel is maintained (and tested) for v8 processors then they had better raise their head above the parapet, fast. I notice that the SnapGear distro they use has both 2.0 and 2.6 kernels (2.6.21 as of today), if they want 2.6 to survive on this platform then they'd better say. Now as far as Sun is concerned... I had it put to me that Sun were unable to support open-source projects targeted at hardware older than the T1, because of their contractual relationship with SPARC International. Now that might have been oxdroppings, but the fact remains that if SPARC International have any interest in preserving v8 then they need to say so. All of these- Gaisler, CyberGuard, SPARC International- are commercial players, and can reasonably be expected to have at least some interest in preserving the v8. If they want to succeed in that then they need to make some sort of commitment to offset Sun, who by now are quite unequivocal about wanting to sell new hardware rather than helping people exploit what they already have or can afford to tinker with. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
BERTRAND Joël wrote: Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Interesting- do have a URL for that? -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: BERTRAND Joël wrote: Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Interesting- do have a URL for that? No. Only this mail : I have a feeling that the broken sparc32 SMP is related to the CPU-specific SMP code, rather than the whole sparc32 port. We have added SMP support for the leon3 (V8) processor to linux-2.6.18.1, and are happily running systems with 8 CPUs in hardware and up to 16 CPUs in simulation. This is done using cache snooping to synchronize processors, i.e. we do NOT flush or disable data caches to keep the system running. I would therefore appreciate if the sparc32 SMP code was left in the kernel, and not removed because it does not work on legacy Sun systems. Leon3/SMP will be used in several projects (and products), including the UC Berkeley RAMP massively parallel computer system. We will make an effort to sync our leon3 port to the latest kernel version (2.6.21 ?), and try (again) to submit the patches for review and inclusion in the mainstream kernel. Jiri Gaisler. Gaisler Research. Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
BERTRAND Joël wrote: Berkeley university has a work in progress on a super computer that uses sparc32 too. Interesting- do have a URL for that? No. Only this mail : I have a feeling that the broken sparc32 SMP is related to the CPU-specific SMP code, rather than the whole sparc32 port. Etc. Thanks, very interesting. My own experience with sun4d and (late) 2.4 suggests that some versions of gcc might work better than others, but I don't have methodical notes. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
My own experience with sun4d and (late) 2.4 suggests that some versions of gcc might work better than others, but I don't have methodical notes. Sun4d SMP has never worked. I spent many hours trying to figure out why, and never managed to achieve a stable system. In the end I concluded that the only viable strategy was to go back to the 2.3.x release where sun4d/smp was first included, fix some bugs, and then sync the evolving sun4m specific code into sun4d one step at a time. This is unfortunately what happens when a minority interest system is allowed to bitrot for so many years. Part of the problem is the lack of Sun4d systems in the hands of kernel developers. AFAIK Sun4m/SMP and Sun4c are currently in a reasonable state and should not be difficult to keep going. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
On Sunday 15 July 2007 03:53, Austin Denyer wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Hi Steven and Denyer, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. Cheers, FJP pgpHzlYzUt2Pp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
I love it for my dual processor SS20. Is there another linux distro I can use? On 15/07/07, Ozz Austin Denyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jurij Smakov wrote: If there are no last-minute objections, I would like to make an official announcement on d-d-a that Debian is dropping support for sparc32 for lenny within the next couple of days. I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Regards, Ozz. - -- Computers are like air conditioners... They stop working when you open Windows. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmX48FhXEj1ek1EMRAi5qAJ0UyG89kHEavMO0+dBCVuTCdIRkZgCgx3k+ lTTdI/R9Cxf7OMp//FBgC3g= =4p8v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Frans Pop wrote: On Sunday 15 July 2007 03:53, Austin Denyer wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Hi Steven and Denyer, Hello, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. Of course. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. I agree. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. The real question is : today, how can give some time to keep sparc32 alive. I take some time to debug the last blocking bug in smp kernel, but I think I am alone to work on the sparc32 kernel. For me, sparc32 should not die because there is a Leon processor that is a sparc V8 clone. Main problem is kernel developpement. If we can continue developpement of sparc32 kernel, sparc32 port will be alive. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. I have tried NetBSD. NetBSD 3.1 (or 4.0) is not stable on SS20 (dual SM71, dual RT626, quad RT626). I don't know why (same trouble than Solaris 9 on quad CPU configuration. Linux is the only mature OS (and today the only usable _and_ up to date) on sparc32 (regular Sun hardware, or new Leon oriented hardware). Regards, JKB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:18:00 +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 15 July 2007 03:53, Austin Denyer wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Hi Steven and Denyer, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. I fully understand what you're saying. The problem is that it would appear that most of the people who USE the sparc32 port are not the people who have the skills to develop it. I count myself in that group. I am not a C hacker - I wish I was. I would give my right arm to be able to support the project with code. Oh well... Regards, Ozz. - -- Computers are like air conditioners... They stop working when you open Windows. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmlo6FhXEj1ek1EMRArJdAKCE7OVA9CNxz8yMvhKF4rT2CIBS5gCeID6e 86mQZDFwTMUN5PjSzRk4GHc= =WLGf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Austin (Ozz) Denyer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:18:00 +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 15 July 2007 03:53, Austin Denyer wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Hi Steven and Denyer, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. I fully understand what you're saying. The problem is that it would appear that most of the people who USE the sparc32 port are not the people who have the skills to develop it. I count myself in that group. I am not a C hacker - I wish I was. I would give my right arm to be able to support the project with code. Oh well... Regards, Ozz. NO the problem is that noone, whether currently qualified or not has taken over mantainance of kernel and toolchain as Frans wrote. Without this Debian (in this case) can't foreseeably have a current or testing release for sparc32, only archived stable versions. I would like to thank all the developers involved in sparc32 for their hard work over many years and acknowledge how hard it must be for them to turn their backs on years of work. I applaud Frans subtlety/ tact and in light of its failure, I'd also ask that users refrain from lamenting loss of sparc32 in this thread and leave it for responses to Jurij's original email. Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) Andrew moonet.co.uk On 15/07/07, Hamish Greig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Austin (Ozz) Denyer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:18:00 +0200, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 15 July 2007 03:53, Austin Denyer wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Hi Steven and Denyer, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. I fully understand what you're saying. The problem is that it would appear that most of the people who USE the sparc32 port are not the people who have the skills to develop it. I count myself in that group. I am not a C hacker - I wish I was. I would give my right arm to be able to support the project with code. Oh well... Regards, Ozz. NO the problem is that noone, whether currently qualified or not has taken over mantainance of kernel and toolchain as Frans wrote. Without this Debian (in this case) can't foreseeably have a current or testing release for sparc32, only archived stable versions. I would like to thank all the developers involved in sparc32 for their hard work over many years and acknowledge how hard it must be for them to turn their backs on years of work. I applaud Frans subtlety/ tact and in light of its failure, I'd also ask that users refrain from lamenting loss of sparc32 in this thread and leave it for responses to Jurij's original email. Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
andrew holway wrote: just thinkin, I don't think a sparc32 chip has been released in more than 12 years. Surely these cannot be energy efficient machines ;) Andrew moonet.co.uk Aren't the Sun Rays which are still shipping using microSparc IIep chips? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Hi Steven and Denyer, We are *also* sad to see sparc32 go, but these kinds of messages are only a repeat of similar reactions on earlier threads. What we need to sparc32 alive - not only in Debian, but in Linux in general - is not people who are sad, but people who are willing to invest time and energy to fix the issues there are, to make sure sparc32 is supported in the software (kernel, toolchain, whatever) and who are committed to _keeping_ it maintained. Being sad unfortunately does not help with that at all. I joined the sparc32 list with the intention of contributing. My surprise, and disappointment, is because the first message that I saw regarding the architecture is that it is going to be retired. Yes, I agree that being sad does nothing, except indicate that there are people out there who use it. (I can think of a few school districts that have limited budgets that have a SPARC or two). As to alternatives, what you should be looking for is somewhere where there is a vibrant sparc32 community, including people who are not just sad, but who are actually doing work to maintain the port. I have no idea if NetBSD has such a community or not. I believe that they do, though I have not made any overtures to join their community yet, as I don't have as much experience with their kernel. Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
--Steven == Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Steven I joined the sparc32 list with the intention of Steven contributing. My surprise, and disappointment, is because Steven the first message that I saw regarding the architecture is Steven that it is going to be retired. i'm not familiar with how Debian does these things, but here's an idea of what i'd like to see happen: - SPARC32 support for lenny is formally stated to be dropped, pending for 6 months. this is *kinda* a replay of the last 4 months, but with an additional level of formality - those who wish to contribute to the SPARC64 port can thus use the v9 code generation options, etc - those who care about continued support for SPARC32 need to form a community, learn/build the required skills to maintain the critical components, being at least gcc and the Linux kernel. i imagine this will require some wiki space, a separate mailing list, and (critically) some reasonablly capable hardware for build daemons. - in 6 months, we review the situation: if the kernel and GCC/SPARC32 have attracted a sufficiently capable and committed (time-wise) team, and suitable hardware is available, we petition for the dropped, pending status to be revoked. i think at that point we'd require a separate SPARC32 platform. i'm not sure how that would be viewed by the wider Debian community, which i'd imagine is wary of additional platforms. alternatively, the SPARC32 port could operate on a semi-official basis, much like the x86-64 port did prior to etch? i don't think it's fair that those in favour of continuing SPARC32 support hold back the SPARC64 effort. those of us who care about SPARC32 need a chance to get organised, and take over the maintenance of the key components required. thoughts? d -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Retiring the sparc32 port
Hi, First of all, I would like to apologize for falling out of the loop for almost 4 months. My move and settling-in period took quite a bit longer than I expected. In the meantime there was no further progress on the decision about continued sparc32 support, so I would like to address it as soon as possible. The discussion which took place in April and May did not in any way resolve the fundamental problem of sparc32: lack of people actively interested in maintaining it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Most developers involved with the sparc port didn't object to dropping it. There were a few objections, but I haven't seen any realistic plan for keeping the port afloat. Even though it appears that there were a few bugfixes for it since my departure, there is still no active upstream maintenance, so I don't think we have sufficient reasons to re-enable the sparc32 kernel builds. Without the updated kernels the debian-boot team cannot really keep the installer in sync with other architectures, which means that we have to make a decision. I don't see other option than dropping it at that point, and I would like to make it official. If there are no last-minute objections, I would like to make an official announcement on d-d-a that Debian is dropping support for sparc32 for lenny within the next couple of days. Best regards, -- Jurij Smakov [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
Jurij Smakov wrote: If there are no last-minute objections, I would like to make an official announcement on d-d-a that Debian is dropping support for sparc32 for lenny within the next couple of days. I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring the sparc32 port
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0700, Steven Ringwald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jurij Smakov wrote: If there are no last-minute objections, I would like to make an official announcement on d-d-a that Debian is dropping support for sparc32 for lenny within the next couple of days. I, for one, will be sorry to see it go, as I actively use my SS10's and 20's. Anyone know of any other Linux distros out there that support the Sparc32 architecture, or am I going to have to look into something like NetBSD going forward? I too will be sad to see it go. I love my SS5... Regards, Ozz. - -- Computers are like air conditioners... They stop working when you open Windows. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGmX48FhXEj1ek1EMRAi5qAJ0UyG89kHEavMO0+dBCVuTCdIRkZgCgx3k+ lTTdI/R9Cxf7OMp//FBgC3g= =4p8v -END PGP SIGNATURE-
