On Dec 12, 2006, at 10:52 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> | 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.

While Solaris defaults to installing a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit  
version of most userland utilities on modern SPARC hardware, 64-bit  
versions of most packages should have been available as an option  
starting around Solaris 7 back in 1999, and some third-party  
utilities such as the GNU suite are also available compiled for  
either m32 or m64:

http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/64_bit_booting.html#Q3
http://www.sunfreeware.com

...at the very least, they include enough of the compiler toolchain  
for you to be able to compile your own 64-bit versions of gawk or GNU  
textutils.

> |> 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.

Counterexamples include Message-id  
<274190120612100706jf397d37vcb1cd027024d9c5c@mail.gmail.com> which  
states: "I'd be interested in seeing numbers for the syscall latency,  
too."

The latency of system calls involves a transition to kernel code by  
definition.
Would you retract your claim, please?

-- 
-Chuck