Re: Is this list alive?

["Aaron J. Grier" <agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 04:53:52AM -0500, Mouse wrote:
> If you just want computrons, then yeah, you want amd64...or possibly
> ARM or some such if low power is an important consideration.  And
> there's probably no point in your being on this list.

I received some first- and second-generation opteron sunfire systems
from a friend who was retiring them.  computronically, they are great,
and the 4-way x2200m2 system builds the amd64 NetBSD-6 world in less
than an hour-and-a-quarter, but the service processor + BIOS combination
is a frankenstein horror.  undering the new layer of paint and server
facade, it's still a PC.

sunfires sure as hell aren't alphas.  maybe the HP superdome stuff is at
the same level as DEC was, but I have my doubts.  it seems to me like
the current generation of "high-end" x86 systems were architected by
people who came up through the x86 ranks and never dealt with even
workstation grade SPARC, MIPS, VAX, or Alpha.

I am watching ARM's growth into server space with interest.  I
previously had a colocated 30W atom system, and the price/performance
ratio was very good, but it was all consumer-grade commodity parts.  the
power supply failed on me after roughly a year, and the motherboard
doesn't support ECC.  I'm interested in what ARM can bring to the table.
FWIW, my sparc 2s were around 40W...

> I'm here because I like the Alpha.  I have Alphas, which I sometimes
> run (and would like to run more), rather than amd64s.  I have/run them
> because I want to.  I enjoy it in a way I don't enjoy running on
> peecee hardware.  Much the same is true of my SPARCs.  Dreamcast.
> Shark.  Etc.

the more I learn about and deal with Intel/AMD hardware, the sadder I am
about Alpha's demise.  I see some of the ideas percolating through
Intel, but dealing with the "top-of-the-line" and still seeing missing
functionality that was implemented in decades-old hardware is a
disappointment.  (it also means there potential opportunity...)

> > the same concerns as storage apply: capacity, performance,
> > availability, physical space, and power consumption / waste heat.
> 
> Yeah.  If those are more important to you than whatever considerations
> got you running alphas, then I'd suggest offering the alphas here, or
> on classiccmp or some such, and running amd64s instead.  You'll
> probably be happier - and whoever ends up with the alphas almost
> certainly will be.

I did make a call out when I got rid of the last load-o-DEC.  there were
no takers for the systems; just some people interested in parts.  (that
reminds me I need to box some things up...)

> But if you have other considerations, reasons you want to run alphas
> instead of peecees, then they are your answer to the above, and they
> can guide you in deciding whether it's better, for you, to look for a
> way to use "modern" drives on your alphas or to stockpile "36G" or
> "72G" drives or the like, or what.

while I haven't had any abjectly horrible experiences with large SATA
drives yet, I have secured a stockpile of SCA drives and a new disk
array, so I can at least keep existing in-use systems going for a while
longer.

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | 
agrier%poofygoof.com@localhost