Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 May 2011 19:25:08 +0200
From:      =?utf-8?Q?Eirik_=C3=98verby?= <ltning@anduin.net>
To:        Sevan / Venture37 <venture37@gmail.com>
Cc:        Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-sun4v@freebsd.org" <freebsd-sun4v@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Dropping sun4v as a platform
Message-ID:  <F3154718-433E-4BB7-9646-69EE959D6C52@anduin.net>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimLYxWQxe1F2qyU%2BKPQySX0HOaQxA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <BANLkTimUpeESJcHN75Vd=gZdXZzA5QPz-g@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTimLYxWQxe1F2qyU%2BKPQySX0HOaQxA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 10. mai 2011, at 18:27, "Sevan / Venture37" <venture37@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10 May 2011 16:35, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> I tried to look to a previous discussion on this and I failed to
>> locate one, thus let me raise the point here.
>>=20
>> As I'm working on on largeSMP support, I was wondering how much sense
>> makes to fixing sun4v for this.
>> Besides having 'tinderbox/universe' working, not so much it seems.
>> The code is pretty much rotting and marius@ said explicitely that an
>> effective effort on that platform should probabilly be more similar to
>> what OpenBSD does with it. He also is in favor of dropping the support
>> entirely, right now.
>>=20
>> So what are objections (if any) about dropping sun4v?
>=20
> support for sun4v was far from stable & a lot of work is needed to get
> it up to shape on the other hand there are a lot of these boxes out
> there & owners who are not looking to pay the Oracle license costs for
> the next version of Solaris.

We have half a dozen collecting dust..for exactly that reason. FreeBSD on su=
n4v sounds like a perfect match.=20

/Eirik

>=20



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F3154718-433E-4BB7-9646-69EE959D6C52>