Re: Sparcstation20 (32 bit) user needs good /etc/apt/sources.list
I can't get the /etc/apt/sources.list at the moment, but the file was generated using option 1 in dselect (repo set-up). Can anyway post a good sources.list for sparc (32)? Thanks, Chris. On 23/07/07, Julien Cristau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 00:22:52 +0100, Chris Andrew wrote: Ludovic, Thank you for your reply. As mentioned, I did a dist-upgrade from Sarge. I can confirm that I am now running Debian 4.0 (Etch). Unfortunately, when I try to check for updates, I have problems with the following packages: apt apt-utils aptitude The problem I have with all three is that I get an error message that says a public key is not available, therefore the packages can't be identified. That should not happen with official packages after you've run aptitude (or apt-get) update. i am asked whether I should install anyway, to which I answer yes. I get script errors when these packages try to configure, and a complaint that apt-utils is not installed prevents me from configuing many packages. That's not an error, AFAIK. I am unable to do a straight install from CD of Etch, because I am told that the ESP module that supports my CDROM, is broken, and it is not fixed until 2.6.22, which Debian isn't using, yet. In summary, I need to work out how to overcome the key problem. It has been suggested that I upgrade my debian-archive-keyring (I think), but I am told this is the newest version, already. I would appreciate any help. It'd help if you said exactly which error messages you get, and what your sources.list looks like. Any unofficial sources there would cause that warning about a missing key. Cheers, Julien -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGo+gjmEvTgKxfcAwRAujoAKCTwu1XuVakjDmJEI886lUi37WoYACgmshe MUIxKnp6Iz50RmvjMD9aTTA= =gZfs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Hi, I have both a collection of sparc32 systems (2x SS20s, 2x SS5/170s, 1x SS4) and a very strong interest in low power in systems that run 24/7. As a result I've done some power measurements on them in order to find the lowest power system that will do what I need. (All of the below should have In my experience/with my measurements/etc stuck in front). I don't see any important power consumption difference whether the systems are idle or not. I actually see a decrease when I use a new fast scsi disk vs the old 1 and 2 gig disks these came with from Sun. In all cases they are maxed out in memory as well so that draws some extra. Finally, this is at 220V so the power supplies might be more or less efficient at 110V. In some cases I've used the SS4 50 watt power supplies and in other cases I've used the SS20 150watt power supplies and I don't see much difference in consumption between these two power supplies in terms of efficiency. My guess is that these power supplies aren't so efficient in converting power. From lowest to highest, measurements taken at the power plug. SS4/110 60watts SS5/170 65watts SS20/Dual 100 hypersparc75watts SS20/180 Hypersparc 77watts SS20/Dual 55 hypersparc 80watts SS20/60 Supersparc 80watts SS20/85 SuperSparcII80watts SS20/133 hypersparc 85watts SS20/200 hypersparc 90watts SS20/Dual 90 hypersparc 90watts SS20/Dual 142 hypersparc 115watts For the benchmark I was running when doing this test, to round numbers, the speed scaled with the clock speed. In general these systems were running NetBSD, but, Debian Sarge was used on the SS4 and the SS20s with SuperSparcs as well with no major changes in power usage. Just a few other numbers with newer systems: 300mhz Ultra10 90watts Mac 7300/200 100watts (two disks though) Dual 400mhz Ultra2180watts (two disks though) I am a big SPARC/PPC fan and not a big x86 fan, therefore I was quite disapointed to find a cheap Dell 500mhz PIII drawing only 55 watts or so. So, 2x faster than the Ultra 10 and 1/2 the power (round numbers). As someone else pointed out though, a NSLU2 is very very low power (my watt meter doesn't measure it). It's even lower power than some cheap 8 port Netgear switch (at 11 watts). The house server is a NSLU2 because of that. cheers bruce -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is effectively dead. OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture. Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe some are easy enough so someone could fix them after reading some documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them. This starts to sound like m68k part 2. No, it is completely different as m68k _does_ have a group of enthusiastic people behind it who actually work on upstream issues. sparc32 has none. Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Bruce O'Neel a écrit : As someone else pointed out though, a NSLU2 is very very low power (my watt meter doesn't measure it). It's even lower power than some cheap 8 port Netgear switch (at 11 watts). The house server is a NSLU2 because of that. I have measured about 850mA on the 5V side for an NSLU 2 @ 266MHz with a 4GB USB flash disk using the internal Ethernet controller. That's a bit more than 4W, so that's mean about 5/6W on the 230VAC side. -- .''`. 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: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
Uwe Hermann wrote: Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct. You are missing the point. Those patches were created by enthusiastic users fixing the problems that they have experienced. Until someone volunteers to become the official maintainer Sparc32 is effectively dead. An official maintainer is essential as the point of contact and the person who contantly tests to ensure that changes elsewhere in the kernel have not caused regressions. Without an official maintainer who is going to be responsible for saying that the port is or is not ready for the next kernel release ?. The Sun4d subset of Sparc32 is an example of cumulative bitrot over many years which will take a major effort to resolve. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sparc32 systems and power consumption
Hi, Bruce O'Neel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As a result I've done some power measurements on them in order to find the lowest power system that will do what I need. Interesting! SS20/Dual 100 hypersparc75watts SS20/180 Hypersparc 77watts SS20/Dual 55 hypersparc 80watts [...] SS20/133 hypersparc 85watts SS20/200 hypersparc 90watts SS20/Dual 90 hypersparc 90watts SS20/Dual 142 hypersparc 115watts These are all ROSS RT62[56] modules, right? Can you tell us which version of NetBSD successfully runs with these configurations, especially the SMP ones? Does the latest NetBSD support some of these configurations? I vaguely remember reading reports saying that roughly no current OS (including Solaris) is able to handle them correctly, especially in SMP mode, so that would be an improvement. Thanks, Ludovic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 02:39:10PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote: OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture. Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe some are easy enough so someone could fix them after reading some documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them. You can start by setting up your own private infrastructure for a new sparc32 architecture, pointing a couple of buildds at it, and note what breaks. You will need to patch gcc and glibc for your new architecture, as you will need to build for sparcv7 or sparcv8, and we are switching to build for sparcv8plus, as we are targetting ultrasparcs only. Once you have your unofficial port established, it shouldn't be difficult to get sparc32 support into the official packages. Then you can do whatever needs to be done with the kernel. It would be nice to have things working on all sun4c, d, and m machines. Hope this helps. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is effectively dead. OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture. Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe some are easy enough so someone could fix them after reading some documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them. Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet Debian release policy. URL:http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability of the existing bugs. Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct. The kernel is but one program in Debian. -- \Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Umm, I think | `\ so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary! -- | _o__)_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intention to drop sparc32 support for Lenny
Slightly like watching a group of boys poking a nearly dead dog. On 23/07/07, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uwe Hermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 04:38:04PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: Do you really think this is a decision that was made lightly? The problem is, and that has been mentioned before, that *there is no upstream maintainer* for sparc32. Unless some people step up and ensure that upstream issues _are_ fixed in a timely manner, sparc32 is effectively dead. OK, not being a SPARC expert myself, I'd still like to see a list of issues or bugs which are worth dropping a whole sub-architecture. Maybe some of them don't even require a SPARC guru to fix them? Maybe some are easy enough so someone could fix them after reading some documentation? In that case I'm willing to have a look at them. Regardless of the set of bugs or the difficulty of fixing them, every architecture itself needs Debian porters and upstream support to meet Debian release policy. URL:http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_policy.html I'm not saying that sparc32 can't meet policy; I'm merely saying that such a judgement is unaffected by discussions about the tractability of the existing bugs. Well, I just saw three or more sparc32 patches being committed to Linus' git tree today or yesterday, so that may not be quite correct. The kernel is but one program in Debian. -- \Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering? Umm, I think | `\ so, Brain, but three men in a tub? Ooh, that's unsanitary! -- | _o__)_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- 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]
