From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 9159 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2022 02:42:23 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Jan 2022 02:42:23 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A3A7F94A6A; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042DE93FD1; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5693B93FD1; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC0F993FCC for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 12:42:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 47A3C35E14B; Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:42:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 18:42:04 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20220104024204.GB22599@mcvoy.com> References: <97f563fa-5a17-424b-acc6-07cf127f496d@localhost> <20220103234411.GA19828@mcvoy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] moving directories in svr2 X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 09:28:02PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 03:44:11PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 05:21:51PM -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote: > > > I'd agree, 2.4 was pretty slow and chunky, 2.5 was alright, but 2.5.1 was quite usable and stable. > > > Also by this time, the hardware was going in directions that SunOS wouldn't keep up with. > > > > Yeah, Doug is right, SunOS was pretty simple, it didn't really take advantage > > of SMP, Greg Limes tried to thread it but it was too big a job for one guy. > > > > That's not to say that SunOS couldn't have evolved into SMP, I'm 100% > > sure it could have. It just didn't. It's a shame. > > I would have thought that if we consider the amount of engineering > resources to that was invested to get from Solaris 2.0 to 2.5.1, if > that had instead been invested into making SunOS a scalable SMP OS, > that it would have been doable. Do you think that's fair? Yes, absolutely. I worked in the kernel group in building 5. That was pretty much the best group of people I have been a part of. That team could have done anything, SMP was not a problem for them. They for sure could have made SunOS scale. The people who didn't leave were the people who made Solaris work. That said, I have to give credit to the group of people I built who did BitKeeper. I'd stand them up against the Sun kernel team and they would win. Smaller group, stellar bunch of people. I'm happy that I got to be part of both teams.