On Dec 12, 10:30am, cswiger@mac.com (Chuck Swiger) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: amd64 stable for production ?

| On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > | On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:53 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| > | >> I think Solaris counts very well.
| > | >
| > | > Yes, if your needs are modest.
| > |
| > | Or even if they are not.  Solaris scales to over 128 CPUs usefully
| > | and has had more than a decade of work on fine-grained kernel
| > | locking, whereas the BSD's are still trying to move away from the
| > | "one big lock" paradigm.
| >
| > Nobody mentioned anything about kernels here or scalability here.
| 
| Did you not state "Yes, if your needs are modest." above?  If you now  
| claim that you weren't talking about the scalability of Solaris, then  
| exactly what did you mean by this remark?

I meant that having most of userland compiled in 32 bit mode does not
suit my needs. In fact it was one of the major reasons I rejected using
solaris in the past.

| > We are strictly talking about userland utilities being unable to
| > handle large datasets because they are compiled in 32 bit mode.
| 
| *You* might be strictly talking about userland utilities, Christos;  
| claiming to speak for every poster to this thread is unlikely to  
| either be factually accurate or fair to other people.

And everyone else in this thread, before you stepped in to mention
how scalable the solaris kernel is, which we already know and appreciate.

Now, let's focus on the discussion: While on the sparc/sparc64
model it probably made sense to have those utilities compiled in
32 bit mode because of performance/compatibility, did it really
make sense on the x86/x86_64 environment? I think not.

If you want to discuss kernel scalability start a different thread.

christos