On 06/23/2016 10:38 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: alexmcwhir...@triadic.us
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:12:35 -0400
1. Oracle knows sparc32 is faster than sparc64, that's why nearly half
of Solaris is 32 bit.
+1
Note that Solaris is providing more and more 64-bit binaries. Solaris
libraries
On 06/27/2016 02:38 PM, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> Note that Solaris is providing more and more 64-bit binaries. Solaris
> libraries are always provided as 32 and 64-bit to ensure backward
> compatibility. But new Solaris binaries are usually 64-bit only.
Thank you! I hope that will finally clear
From: alexmcwhir...@triadic.us
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:12:35 -0400
> 1. Oracle knows sparc32 is faster than sparc64, that's why nearly half
> of Solaris is 32 bit.
+1
On 2016-06-23 04:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 06/23/2016 07:54 AM, Alex McWhirter wrote:
I spend most of my time working on pure 64 bit sparc linux. simply
because that's where all the work is currently being done. That being
said there are
noticeable speed improvements with some ap
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:42:41 +0200
> On 06/23/2016 09:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> We're not asking for the old "pure" 32-bit sparc port.
>>
>> Just a v8+ one, that doesn't support any pre-sparc64 hardware.
>>
>> Also a large entity doing something doesn't ma
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:33:34 +0200
> On 06/23/2016 09:31 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> And all of those binaries you say "don't matter" take up memory,
>> swap space, etc. And if you add this up for the entire system
>> it's non-trivial.
>>
>> Multiply this by so
@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Please upgrade your machines to sparc64
On 06/23/2016 09:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
We're not asking for the old "pure" 32-bit sparc port.
Just a v8+ one, that doesn't support any pre-sparc64 hardware.
Also a large entity doing something doesn't make i
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 21:25:40 +0200
> As I have mentioned before, the work mainly targets modern
> hardware. We are not doing this so that people can install Debian on
> historic hardware.
We're not asking for the old "pure" 32-bit sparc port.
Just a v8+ one, t
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 20:42:31 +0200
> On 06/23/2016 05:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> I think what irks people the most about what happened, is that the
>> choosen a path is not the most optimal situation for the target
>> platform.
>
> Why should it be any diffe
On 06/23/2016 09:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> We're not asking for the old "pure" 32-bit sparc port.
>
> Just a v8+ one, that doesn't support any pre-sparc64 hardware.
>
> Also a large entity doing something doesn't make it the correct
> thing to do.
I'm out of this discussion. This is annoying.
On 06/23/2016 09:31 PM, David Miller wrote:
> And all of those binaries you say "don't matter" take up memory,
> swap space, etc. And if you add this up for the entire system
> it's non-trivial.
>
> Multiply this by some factor N when virtualization is involved.
On a machine with 8 TiB of memory
On 06/23/2016 09:06 PM, Patrick Baggett wrote:
> Just to adopt a devil's advocate approach here: I could also say that it
> doesn't make sense to compile dateutils for 64-bit since extended address
> space is no
> use. I think the point is that there are advantages both ways: having a
> single s
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <
glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 06/23/2016 05:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > I think what irks people the most about what happened, is that the
> > choosen a path is not the most optimal situation for the target
> > platform.
>
On 06/23/2016 05:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
> I think what irks people the most about what happened, is that the
> choosen a path is not the most optimal situation for the target
> platform.
Why should it be any different for sparc64 than for ppc64el, amd64,
arm64, mips64el and so on? Is SPARC so
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 10:30:14 +0200
> Thus, I don't think any of the objections brought up against the
> sparc64 port are valid. Neither is sparc64 64-bit only nor does
> anyone anyhow prevent you in Debian to mix packages from different
> architectures. In fact,
On 06/23/2016 07:54 AM, Alex McWhirter wrote:
> I spend most of my time working on pure 64 bit sparc linux. simply because
> that's where all the work is currently being done. That being said there are
> noticeable speed improvements with some applications being 32 bit.
Where did I say that it is
On 06/22/2016 10:14 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Or compile and maintain your own 32-bit userspace (like I do). For the
> stuff I need, upstream projects have no issues with 32-bit.
That's what I meant when I mentioned Gentoo as an option.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debia
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:23:40PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> That won't change the fact that the majority of work is now happening on
> sparc64. I don't think there is a realistic chance of getting most projects
> spending much work on the 32-bit code since the focus is on new
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:23:40 +0200
> Alas, I haven't done any detailed benchmarking yet.
Too bad, since that's where all the problems will be.
Even just doing a kernel build or a gcc bootstrap, you'll
see it.
And that effects the people like me who you expect
On 06/22/2016 09:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
> Frankly, I'm leaving all of my sparc64 machines, yes all of
> them, running the unsupported 32-bit userland and will simply
> live without upgrades and support.
>
> That's how important this is to me.
I'm not arguing with you that 32-bit code is faste
On 06/22/2016 09:13 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: chase rayfield
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:20:59 -0400
>
>> How well maintained is the Debian Sparc port these days and what is
>> the reason for forcing upgrades to 64bit userland?
>>
>> Sparcv8+ 32bit code is faster as far as I know in most ca
Hello!
According to to Debian's popularity contest page [1], there are still 82
machines
reporting to be running Debian's old, unsupported sparc port (32-bit userland,
64-bit kernel). Since popcon only reports machines where the users decided to
opt-in, the number of unreported sparc installation
22 matches
Mail list logo
