[9fans] amd64 port

[9fans] amd64 port

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi all,

i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.

to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.

on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.

i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
support).

so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
right?

please pass your opinion.

thanks
dharani

Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
compilers.

      -eric


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
<vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>
> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>
> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>
> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
> support).
>
> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
> right?
>
> please pass your opinion.
>
> thanks
> dharani
>
>

Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[John Floren]

I've consumed the Kool-Aid and now believe that ARM is the proper
future for Plan 9. With Gumstix, you can get USB, DVI, audio, storage,
ethernet, wifi, 3G, all in one tiny little box, for under $200, and
with increasingly improving Plan 9 support (certainly better than
amd64, which I used--it was primitive because nobody really used it)

John

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
> ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
> available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
> partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
> devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
> changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
> compilers.
>
>      -eric
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
> <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi all,
>>
>> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>>
>> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
>> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>>
>> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
>> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>>
>> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
>> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
>> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
>> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
>> support).
>>
>> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
>> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
>> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
>> right?
>>
>> please pass your opinion.
>>
>> thanks
>> dharani
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[David Leimbach]

Plan 9'on ARM makes a lot of sense to me.  I still think x86 is
worthwhile though.

On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, John Floren <slawmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've consumed the Kool-Aid and now believe that ARM is the proper
> future for Plan 9. With Gumstix, you can get USB, DVI, audio, storage,
> ethernet, wifi, 3G, all in one tiny little box, for under $200, and
> with increasingly improving Plan 9 support (certainly better than
> amd64, which I used--it was primitive because nobody really used it)
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
>> available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
>> partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
>> devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
>> changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
>> compilers.
>>
>>      -eric
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
>> <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>>>
>>> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
>>> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>>>
>>> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
>>> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>>>
>>> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
>>> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
>>> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
>>> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
>>> support).
>>>
>>> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
>>> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
>>> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
>>> right?
>>>
>>> please pass your opinion.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> dharani
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan]

hi,

i think we could stress on a specific architecture (and aim to provide
basic and improved support) based on these criteria:

- mainline architecture
- cheap and affordable both for companies and individuals (also,
single board orders as well as bulk orders)
- widely deployed and used
- has future
- availability of VM software (like VmWare, Parallels, etc) and
ability to run at least on top of such facility
- low power versions

i guess amd64 is a definite win.

this apart, i am very happy to see plan9 running in as many platforms
as possible. just that we may have to avoid some platforms that looks
like cheap plan 9 terminals but ends up being very costly (like geoff
mentioned for beagleboard) while an atom board can easily do the job.

thanks
dharani


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:17 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
> Plan 9'on ARM makes a lot of sense to me.  I still think x86 is
> worthwhile though.
>
> On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, John Floren <slawmaster@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've consumed the Kool-Aid and now believe that ARM is the proper
>> future for Plan 9. With Gumstix, you can get USB, DVI, audio, storage,
>> ethernet, wifi, 3G, all in one tiny little box, for under $200, and
>> with increasingly improving Plan 9 support (certainly better than
>> amd64, which I used--it was primitive because nobody really used it)
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ppc64 and amd64 support exists.  the ppc64 port is partial and is
>>> available publically.  It is my understanding that the amd64 is
>>> partial and available to those who ask.  Things which are missing are
>>> devices and other bits to make it actually useful, but the core
>>> changes for 64-bit support are in place and there are 64 bit
>>> compilers.
>>>
>>>      -eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
>>> <vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> i am just posting a question that has been in my mind for a while.
>>>>
>>>> to me, it looks like 64-bit computing has caught up very well. even
>>>> smaller processors like atom supports 64-bit instruction set.
>>>>
>>>> on the contrary, while plan9 supported 32-bit processors ahead of
>>>> other OSes, it is yet to support 64-bit.
>>>>
>>>> i am happy to see the plan9 port to many platforms (sheevaplug,
>>>> beagleboard, etc) but i am also wondering if they are really as
>>>> practical and widely usable as, say amd64 platform. (for e.g. i bought
>>>> a sheevaplug long back, ran plan9 then kept aside waiting for more
>>>> support).
>>>>
>>>> so i am wondering if we should make plan9/inferno support 64-bit at a
>>>> higher priority. to me, it looks like 64-bit and VM support (vmware,
>>>> parallels, etc) will be key for plan9/inferno to go a long way. am i
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>> please pass your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> dharani
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] amd64 port

[Eric Van Hensbergen]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
<vdharani@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> i think we could stress on a specific architecture (and aim to provide
> basic and improved support) based on these criteria:
>
> - mainline architecture
> - cheap and affordable both for companies and individuals (also,
> single board orders as well as bulk orders)
> - widely deployed and used
> - has future
> - availability of VM software (like VmWare, Parallels, etc) and
> ability to run at least on top of such facility
> - low power versions
>
> i guess amd64 is a definite win.
>

well, I'd say the best target for amd64 is qemu-system-x86_64 so we
spend minimal time on driver peculiarities and hardware nonsense, but
since I have zero time to work on it, I'll shut up :)

       -eric