On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:17:40PM +0000, Bruce O'Neel wrote:
> *NOW* I've added port-sparc to the To:...
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Bruce O'Neel <edoneel@sdf.lonestar.org> -----
> > 
> > william,
> >  we seem like very similiar people. on another note, i am getting a sun
> > sparc 5, sparc 1, and sparc 1+ for free this weekend. all religious bsd
> > vs linux aside, what is the FASTEST free os for these old beasts?
> > (actually i am excited about the sparc 5, it ain't that old of a beast..
> > :) )
> 
> I can't comment on the 1 or 1+, but for the 5 you have two things to
> consider.
> 

For the SS1 and therefor the 5 Mhz faster clocked SS1+ Linux is stoned slow.
Don't even consider ... Linux for this machines.
By (bad) design is not able to handle virtually addressed caches right.
So turning of caching would be best using linux.

SS4 and SS5  is also fine with NetBSD.

But I would point you to the 2.1_STABLE branch, since there are still stability issues with 3.0_STABLE.
I get a watchdog-reset on a one or two times a day basis on my gateway (SS2) and imapserver (SS1).
This wasn't the case with 2.1.

Don't be worried, UWE's patches for cache handling on SS4/5 machines were pulled up to the 2.1_STABLE.

> - If it's a 170 you are going to have problems with Linux.  Linux
> 2.4 kernels seem to run fine on the 70, 85, and 110mhz MicroSparcII
> chips, but the 170mhz Turbosparc gives them problems.  The symptoms
> are random hangs (at least for me) under high i/o load.  The 2.6
> kernels seem broken for the moment.
> 

I'm astonished that you survived a boot of linux on a turbo.
When I tried, the system just froze.

> - NetBSD 3.0 runs execellenty on both the 110 and 170mhz ones.  I've
> not tried the others.

Not agreed, 3_0_STABLE runs INSTABLE. Use 2.1_STABLE.


Andreas 
-- 
NetBSD: If you happen to have any problem with your uptime.