From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Aug 12 12:47:54 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80E09A0B4F for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:47:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from papowell@astart.com) Received: from astart2.astart.com (wsip-72-214-30-30.sd.sd.cox.net [72.214.30.30]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0762753 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:47:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from papowell@astart.com) Received: from laptop_93.private (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by astart2.astart.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t7CCiQZW051168 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 05:44:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from papowell@astart.com) Message-ID: <55CB3FAA.5020507@astart.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 05:44:26 -0700 From: Patrick Powell Reply-To: papowell@astart.com Organization: Astart Technologies User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sparc64 support References: <16D597AE-613F-431F-8F56-30A8908F1913@me.com> <55C9F8D2.5030704@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <55C9F8D2.5030704@digiware.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:47:54 -0000 On 08/11/15 06:29, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > On 11-8-2015 10:11, Jordan Hubbard wrote: >>> I see a lot of hatred towards the less popular, "weird" arches. >>> Having a variety of arches has a *lot* of value. >> I’m sorry, but on top of the points above where I think you’re fairly >> far off-base, you could not be more wrong here either. Even NetBSD, >> which has long had the motto of “of course it runs NetBSD!” (as if >> the answer was so obvious as to be unworth the question), has been >> retiring architectures left and right because there is no such thing >> as “free” in software. Everything has a cost in time, in complexity, >> in maintenance headaches, etc. You absolutely MUST weigh the >> relative value of each and every platform (or HW device) you support >> and be willing to ruthlessly cull the old and the weak or before >> long, your software will be a collection of burdensome conditionals >> and weird constructs that no one even understands the purpose of >> anymore, but “they were necessary for something, at some point” so no >> one dares remove them, either. >> >> Just ask the OpenSSL project how heavy the burden of history can be >> (and look at how many lines of code LibreSSL has ripped out, often >> with great glee) and then ask yourself again if your definition of >> “value” is truly aligned with the converse reality we objectively >> know to be true > Well it starts with the fun job of writing compiler-backends where the > code is generated... Let alone that the backend writes optimized > machine-code. > Newer CPUs allow for combinations of instructions never considered for > which new algorithms must be designed to actual be able to use them > efficiently. > > Then it gets to the OS and the platform itself, where ARM is a real nice > example.. You can call it ARM, but just only the CPU has 4 modes, let > alone that there are various versions with different instruction. > sets. Then go the the VM and other system architecture variations and > you understand why the development of FreeBSD on ARM still has lots of > very tricky changes to accommodate for. > > Last but not least are the devices that come with new platforms. Sure > they look a lot like the ones already done, especially if they are in > the PCI family. But still fine details need to be tinkered to get > devices to work (flawless). > > And then once you have mastered that all, try to retrofit something like > ZFS.... > > No, over the years I've always been happy that FreeBSD was deliberately > careful in selecting their platforms. Because there is always NetBSD as > close alternative. > > I install BSD stats on most of the boxed I operate, but obviously not > many people do... And even less SPARC people do, so it seems. > > Goto http://www.bsdstats.org/bt/cpus.html to get a hang of where FreeBSD > is running.... > > Short version: > Out of 11.000 submissions: > (SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIe @ 500 MHz) 5 > Microsystems UltraSparc-IIe 12 > Microsystems UltraSparc-IIIi 2 > Microsystems UltraSparc-IIi 1 > > But no ARM at all, so that sort of make the numbers above fall in the > range: lies, damn lies, statistics. :) > > --WjWX86, > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > As I was reading this, I kept having flashbacks to doing cross system porting: different compilers, include files, architectures, etc. etc. My congratulations to the FreeBSD/OpenBSD/WhateverLinuxThisWeek folks for getting things to run on X86/AMD64/Some RISC/Hardware Development Board De Jour. "It's not that the bear dances well, its amazing that the bear dances at all!" -- Patrick Powell Astart Technologies papowell@astart.com 1530 Jamacha Rd, Suite X Network and System San Diego, CA 92019 Consulting 858-874-6543 FAX 858-751-2435 Web: www.astart.com