Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:27:16 +0100 From: "Sevan / Venture37" <venture37@gmail.com> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-sun4v@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dropping sun4v as a platform Message-ID: <BANLkTimLYxWQxe1F2qyU%2BKPQySX0HOaQxA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimUpeESJcHN75Vd=gZdXZzA5QPz-g@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTimUpeESJcHN75Vd=gZdXZzA5QPz-g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > 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. > > So what are objections (if any) about dropping sun4v? 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. Just my 2 pence. Sevan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTimLYxWQxe1F2qyU%2BKPQySX0HOaQxA>