From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 10 16:57:18 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141E51065670; Tue, 10 May 2011 16:57:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from venture37@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8548FC12; Tue, 10 May 2011 16:57:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so895819vws.13 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 09:57:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oSgRFO6vH/s/wUJHLiD61k+zbTV+jXTk0PGfWMDhZv4=; b=J0mPr3vmCoi+qJ1GKvxCDd3bAM5OTdx0t7nKok0IZQczBXxsIa8yl/pccNy8L4/bO1 ReK/fRm5HL77REPRlSJcVwYAEenWkWc9sp3jcHyZ56qCZdl+8QI3ff2Gzfs6z2eO30Ix mV3HlF/Xf3+iocZQbbZCbefVU8FbV/IgRtAr4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=AQH+3Qj9TGuINYoH3mvrpVbOq8nXq5mxAXRsfOi5wF+haDxKipioitmVIQSiYvi9tZ c/u81zogUdJN63OeTXRHc4e9qgGVQ7GI/sNkE6BJ+LZshR57U2SjZkfFOMfSSnLZ7/ZC aLpGfis4lK2o0B5KtguA0/YectN/Pzu7iXw5Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.73.196 with SMTP id n4mr588304vdv.145.1305044836364; Tue, 10 May 2011 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.165.33 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:27:16 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Sevan / Venture37" To: Attilio Rao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-sun4v@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dropping sun4v as a platform X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:57:18 -0000 On 10 May 2011 16:35, Attilio Rao 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