--Signature_Mon__20_Jun_2005_07_09_01_-0400_6MaDrDRd7s0OxQo7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

> I realize that NetBSD doesn't support multiprocessor sparcv9 systems yet,=
 but, I=20
> assume that that's only a matter of time.  I might be able to help with t=
his if=20
> I get a smp v9 system.

Now that X works fine on sparc64 the next target would be SMP.

> What I don't have a good feel for is how these type of systems perform.  =
My=20
> jobs will be mostly integer work that is strictly CPU bound.  The memory =
bandwidth
> needed isn't very high.  Disk I/O doesn't really matter too much, ie, nfs=
 across=20
> 10baseT is fine.
>=20
> I have one existing sparc system (ss4, 110mhz) that compared to the other=
 systems=20
> (say a 200mhz 604e) is quite underwhelming.  Are the Supersparcs and hype=
rsparcs
> likely to be as slow as the microsparc IIs?  And how does the Ultra 2 com=
pare=20
> to the Supersparcs and hypersparcs?

I think /any/ of your candidates would be faster than a microSPARC on a wor=
k-per-clock ratio. These CPUs aren't superscalar ( Super- and UltraSPARC ar=
e, not sure about HyperSPARC ) and have no L2 cache ( only small L1 ).

have fun
Michael

--Signature_Mon__20_Jun_2005_07_09_01_-0400_6MaDrDRd7s0OxQo7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBQrajzcpnzkX8Yg2nAQJpHAgAuJjo85j9Z9ZaODoms3KWXCOduGion84p
ebJnqkVv3ToHhBBMO2ANMa4yYVt1AbDaKKerWy/UutwzLpp7PKaUljEIUk3Gkdvp
tOa1rQfWKjJDLDHW1jYfZp3NnTJ9VlWjNkwBe7cGODuClErfGG3Oizeab4kfg3W0
5dwF4smjx7RVscSi0eT7g63qvm1ASBmaeTBnUzVXH1H2hhSX6htQl9wv3h+Yxn3v
Mvlo0z8GLUVA9+z4k89Bfz/ezm8l4L5tESjQAOI4DlaFhHbYSY3xT2nmhvPrDDLg
dB2WyNDxNCjQkEy7IMqdvEzW5UP+lyxn5aHsJyjlMcAMJ95GAkd5cw==
=40HR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Signature_Mon__20_Jun_2005_07_09_01_-0400_6MaDrDRd7s0OxQo7--