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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 22054 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2022 23:56:53 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 3 Jan 2022 23:56:53 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D308594A86; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:56:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1955D93FD1; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:56:35 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="yWsDdikZ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id A0ACE93FD1; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:56:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D85193FCC for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2022 09:56:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id p37so60135313uae.8 for ; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:56:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=w7/2mFKRrxaZrVkeS9ynol7pd8FrpRzcgbTWvIP5qoQ=; b=yWsDdikZAYZzHJk98TXKcir4I+8spgnZ34o7tsyFdVX75lEL2rtsO2Hp6nC5g1UcIC T/4ZYZKDHWFCBi04GQREGEXRmijcj+vrBQtLHk4VUEuB14J1htI7iDQkhYlO3R9tkFf0 AUDGUHArlHGgqA99Vn09bfpxXOSZdOHPFQfxwSTsq9bW4Y0oOvArKv9ayH2olbs0rjB9 TuoG3uo1HPgUhf9v0H0RWoyK3ZALenFjGhRsZtZcRvFppkg1xI2oSQDzCxtXQ4WbQ1aK CgQ5bZGSYQ4DPqyq+SE6q8dx0k7eMlAONWW1vZMjKRXUUrJRxojoa+Gax1B4NL8vybmc knIg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=w7/2mFKRrxaZrVkeS9ynol7pd8FrpRzcgbTWvIP5qoQ=; b=WKj8D38sHGtxrOKwW6zjRJ2pHg4fOK8XXmgRyFHGslCSQ7S7zfoyzJFVyuUBgHqEAP 4zcwCVl3k+JZhVG1BDY7inbl8kugmkbQrltyFMrm+WkqhEu5UZuR+NqAb4aSoqqXfwyu 4inIBo7DEsZn2a6ITr397M+ocDLZaLoR869o0iMl2zjFF62wGyKkhI+w/DIdHZg863jG 4d614tP/yKDfSwe9ipO3SnlzXmqU6U86vq93RAV/jgntb3uB0qpjjGOsvo+TlJ93wKX2 yt4/2uopC+FGUjoGPkgh+E1bBUT133bZCYr9t4+t+YmSahjkeZlfQ1JNQuSyKVAT3f+B alNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BxhqnPxAKbTejLUEl2d8jN5lkPLrdPINIYJhKOWD3/mws4Ofv kfyEO7c0z3HdVpQ5Dt5X8BB88MoLQn6toT49MJpksw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcjRC05txaAOO2cTPnsz3W6KKlDDGkMmeazP+m1xAwdsztHMa896SaYQ7jgSmWI1u161pYfSp3/rK0UEmNkTA= X-Received: by 2002:a9f:2383:: with SMTP id 3mr14726300uao.77.1641254189398; Mon, 03 Jan 2022 15:56:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <97f563fa-5a17-424b-acc6-07cf127f496d@localhost> <20220103234411.GA19828@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20220103234411.GA19828@mcvoy.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:56:17 -0700 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f20fe705d4b64419" 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" --000000000000f20fe705d4b64419 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jan 3, 2022, 4:44 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 05:21:51PM -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 04:15:08PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 3:23 PM Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, to be fair, by the time Solaris 2.3 or 2.4 came around, it was > > > > mostly up to par. (Or maybe it was because Moore's law meant that we > > > > didn't care any more. :-) > > > > > > I have some vague memories that we had to do something like double the > > > RAM in our SPARCstations to make Solaris 2 feel comfortable. At the > > > time, that was a pretty serious outlay in an academic department. > > > 2.5.1 felt like the first version that was _truly_ usable. > > > > 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. > Solbourne had it's OS/MP which did do SMP with a subsystem locking strategy. This worked reasonably well for the time. So it was quite possible. Solbourne died, though because it couldn't get Solaris sources soon enough to do a port that mattered... Warner > --000000000000f20fe705d4b64419 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mon, Jan 3, 2022, 4:44 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 05:21:51PM -0600, Doug McIntyre w= rote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 04:15:08PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 3:23 PM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu= > wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, to be fair, by the time Solaris 2.3 or 2.4 came around= , it was
> > > mostly up to par.=C2=A0 (Or maybe it was because Moore's= law meant that we
> > > didn't care any more.=C2=A0 :-)
> >
> > I have some vague memories that we had to do something like doubl= e the
> > RAM in our SPARCstations to make Solaris 2 feel comfortable. At t= he
> > time, that was a pretty serious outlay in an academic department.=
> > 2.5.1 felt like the first version that was _truly_ usable.
>
> 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 wou= ldn't keep up with.

Yeah, Doug is right, SunOS was pretty simple, it didn't really take adv= antage
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.=C2=A0 It just didn't.=C2=A0 It's a shame.

Solbou= rne had it's OS/MP which did do SMP with a subsystem locking strategy. = This worked reasonably well for the time. So it was quite possible. Solbour= ne died, though because it couldn't get Solaris sources soon enough to = do a port that mattered...

Warner=C2=A0
--000000000000f20fe705d4b64419--