Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OS Review: NetBSD 1.6.2 on SPARC64

Posted by michael on from the esoterica dept.

JigSaw writes "NetBSD is the king of operating system portability, running on 40+ different hardware platforms, including x86, MIPS, and even the Sega Dreamcast. So it comes as no surprise that among the supported platforms, NetBSD runs on Tony Bourke's Sun Ultra 5. Here is his review."

58 comments

  1. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Linux runs on SPARC too...

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userland.
      NetBSD wants to have 64-bit userland.

    2. Re:What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, a couple of the gentoo guys have a native 64bit userland (well, stage3) available for sparc64. it's slower than 32bit, obviously, but it does mostly work...

  2. Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Why are you linking to OS News... SO STUPID... I can feel my brain melting... AGGH!

    1. Re:Ugh. by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      It's not eugenia though, this guy actually seems to have some competence.

    2. Re:Ugh. by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      I read the rest of the article, nevermind.

    3. Re:Ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I know, offtopic but...

      Somebody ought to ask for the sake of the unknowing in the crowd...just what is the issue between /. and OSnews?

  3. the only alternate OS for NeXT boxen? by Artifex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't looked recently, but other than NeXTStep, the only OS I ever found that could run on my basic black slab was NetBSD, and even that had to be strapped from a bootserver, with no local disk support. I'm not sure whether it's more a testament to the wacky hardware or how tenacious the NetBSD teams have been that they were able to do this at all...

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
    1. Re:the only alternate OS for NeXT boxen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local disks now work as well as turbo machines in -current. You can even get the monitor and X (not Xfree86 however) working on mono non-ADB machines. Checking the page for next68k would have told you this.

      However, I would still reccoment running NEXTSTEP anyway, or OPENSTEP if you have a machine with more than 64MB of ram (yes that much otherwise you will get slowdowns).

  4. The only real competitor to Linux... by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...in the embedded space, that is. I see NetBSD turning up in a lot of devices now, including our new office copier of all things.

    Competition is a good thing, mmmmmkay, as some here would say.

    I have to wonder what's driving Net's adoption in the embedded space. Is it technical merit, or the the BSD license allowing vendors to keep their changes closed?

    I'm just glad to see that Netcraft was wrong :P

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:The only real competitor to Linux... by DashEvil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that really clean stable code + a license to do whatever you want with it is really all the reason they need.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    2. Re:The only real competitor to Linux... by Homology · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I have to wonder what's driving Net's adoption in the embedded space. Is it technical merit, or the the BSD license allowing vendors to keep their changes closed?

      I've often wondered why some companies choose to use Linux when they are unwilling to show their source code. It clearly has not been to the advantage of the companies involved to be exposed as not complying with the GPL. It is risky business decision to choose to ignore license issues.

      Perhaps more attention will be given to the *BSD family with it's technically very good OS and a free license.

    3. Re:The only real competitor to Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've often wondered why some companies choose to use Linux when they are unwilling to show their source code."

      It's because the bulk of them couldn't give a rats ass about a bunch of spotty kids banging at the door demanding they comply with the GPL.

    4. Re:The only real competitor to Linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No because the spotty kids don't hold the copyrights to the code. Ask "the bulk" of them how they feel about infringing copyrights of the holders though? Then ask RIAA and the US government the same question.

      Then ask IBM whether they care about companies infringing their copyrights (code they paid developers to write). Ask Intel, HP, Sun, OSDL, Transmeta, the US government (NSA), Cisco, Motorola, Nokia, dozens of eductional institutions, Red Hat, Suse, etc., Dell, NEC, Toshiba (to name some prominent ones), what they think of their copyrights being violated?

      Sorry you lose buddy. Linux isn't made by "spotty kids". Maybe you're thinking of BSD.

  5. Ultra 5? Oh please no by keesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you're going to review an OS on an UltraSparc box, please pick anything other than the u5/10. The u5/10 is basically a PC clone with an ultrasparc processor. It has a pisspoor IDE chipset, a crippled CPU (IIi has far less cache than a II), a crippled PCI backplane, low memory bandwidth and a PC-like chipset. A far better measure of how well an OS has been ported is an Ultra 2.

    (and yes, I do know what I'm talking about, and I have sparc-related code in the Linux kernel to prove it :) )

    1. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by xaoslaad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is also cheap to snag on eBay. So are U2's, but well beggars can't be choosers. And if I remember what started all these posts on OS News, it was someone snagging a U5 on ebay or some such. I might be making that up; but i seem to recall. Anyway, for someone wanting to learn about Sparc, Solaris, OpenBoot, and just plain mess around with something different, it is not a bad place to start. And not caring too much about performance what's it matter if he does it on a U5 or U2, and the U5's come in under the U2's a lot of the time. Ya I'm a baised whore cause that's how I got my U5, but then I can also tell you price was a problem, and when I wanted and UltraSparc to learn about Solaris 8/9 and OpenBoot on I got my hands on a beautiful looks like its fresh out of the U5 for $200. I ear the U10's are flaky, but I don't know I've never used one and cannot say myself, but whatever. I tend to think the U5 is just fine for what he's doing without inserting the 'you're using a cheap loser system' type snobbery.

    2. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by 680x0 · · Score: 4, Informative
      A far better measure of how well an OS has been ported is an Ultra 2.
      I have an Ultra 1 (UltraSparc @ 167MHz), and I have to say that my experience installing NetBSD 1.6.1 was quite similar to his experience (panic during install, no binary packages available, etc.) And, besides, the review seemed to focus on the app side of things, not the driver/hardware side.

      That said, I don't think there's anything major that can't be fixed. Once installed, it's run flawlessly, and the only package I couldn't compile from pkgsrc is Apache 2.x (I installed Apache 1.x instead).

      I've had the (32-bit) sparc port of NetBSD running solidly on a SparcStation-2 for over a year and a half (it's my DHCP/NTP/DNS server).

    3. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by agent+dero · · Score: 3, Informative

      I installed OpenBSD on my Sparc Station 5 without a hitch, but on my dual CPU ultra2, it paniced in the very end of the installation

      Here's some tips:
      when it paniced for me, it was really done installing, it will drop you into single-user mode. From there (where I was) you'll really just have to create the rc.conf file. And maybe do some disk-limbo and some network configuration with 'ifconfig' but it's not too difficult.

      The same basic thing happened for me with NetBSD when I first tried it, but now, it runs like a champ, give it a try

      (I got the Ultra2 from AnySystem.com on eBay for $70, try them out) </shameless plug>

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    4. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by dohcvtec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I installed OpenBSD on my Sparc Station 5 without a hitch, but on my dual CPU ultra2, it paniced...

      For one thing, OpenBSD doesn't do SMP (yet) and IIRC it will not function with a second processor present. It's not like other hardware, where if it doesn't recognize it, it just ignores it - I seem to recall that it will panic with more than one processor installed.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    5. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

      We have been migrating production off of U2's (and SS-20's) for a long time. I have a dual processor U2 to play with in my cube. I don't waste my time with CD-ROMs, I just netbooted from FreeBSD and installed that way. Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD paniced during installation. I preferred the OpenBSD installation program to the NetBSD one, but it's been too long and I don't remember why now.

      Neither OS supported SMP on that box at the time supposedly Linux does, but I haven't tried. I was going to try to CVS the OpenBSD SMP branch but haven't gotten around to it.

      I had FreeBSD 5-DP running on it by using an ISP SCSI since the built-in ESP doesn't have a driver yet. As FreeBSD 5 development went on it became increasingly less compatible with the U2. Eventually the upgrade path ended with a kernel that had lock order reversal. Later attempts didn't seem to support the ISP anymore. I suppose I could have switched to diskless but I moved off of FreeBSD.

    6. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ultra2 is fine with just one CPU installed.

    7. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by 680x0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hate to reply to my own comment, but it looks like the binary packages are available for 1.6.2 for sparc64.

    8. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 1

      I've got an Ultra2, and it installed like a champ first time out of the box. Did it a few times, once to see what it was like, another to set the partitions to the way I liked it, and a third time after getting sick of trying to get Debian to run. I've given it up for Solaris, as the Creator3D UPA fast frame buffer isn't supported, but it seemed stable and straightforward, and the 64-bit packages I tried installed fine. (OpenBSD doesn't support SMP, and FreeBSD doesn't support Ultra2's and earlier. Linux makes Baby Jesus cry.)

      That said, the U5 is a very common piece of hardware, and it bodes ill that it's not well supported. I understand a lot of the problem is GCC, but GCC 3.3.3 is supposed to cure that for 2.0.

      SoupIsGood Food

    9. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      For the record, it _will_ work with x number of CPUs installed, the kernel just won't detect them.

    10. Re:Ultra 5? Oh please no by Octorian · · Score: 2, Informative

      The U5 and the U10 are the same exact machine. The only difference is the case, PCI riser card, and the CPU speeds they shipped with. The motherboard is identical.

  6. I *hate* OSNews reviews by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why, oh why, do I keep letting myself be suckered into reading these piles of drivel? I know I'll lose an IQ point every time I do, but I just can't keep from looking.

    For example, I have no idea why you would ever not use pkgsrc (or ports) to build packages whenever possible. The reviewer goes on for half a page about his troubles compiling OpenSSL from source. No kidding? That's why we have pkgsrc and ports - someone else has already solved all the little problems for you!

    Likewise, he's incredulous that his locally-built package using uber-elite optimization flags runs faster than the downloadable binary package. Frankly, that's like being amazed that a locally-built Debian package may be faster than the generic i386 package that you can download.

    I honestly don't know why they label these diatribes as "reviews", when they should be called "a day spent with a system I don't understand".

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:I *hate* OSNews reviews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I honestly don't know why they label these
      > diatribes as "reviews",...

      Welcome to the world of open-source! Where no
      one lets facts get in the way of (mis-informed)
      opinions or (epsecially) licenses.

  7. Too bad by Kraken137 · · Score: 1

    I can't get it to install on my AlphaServer 2100. I actually attempted a NetBSD 1.6.2 install on it a couple nights ago. The kernel appears to detect the DAC960 RAID controller on boot, but then claims there are no disks attached to the system. Fun fun. FreeBSD locks up whilst scanning the PCI bus.

    1. Re:Too bad by beholder77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can download snapshots of more recent source code on it's way to NetBSD 2.0 at ftp://releng.netbsd.org. I've had very positive experiences with the new kernel and userland so far, but YMMV.

      --
      Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
    2. Re:Too bad by Kraken137 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks for that pointer... after toying with it for a while, I realized that if I simply created the ld0* devices by hand (a serious pain in the ass), everything was fine and the installation could continue.

  8. Similar problems by harikiri · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have an Ultra5 here at home that I test things out with from time to time. At one stage I envisionged being able to use it as a server running Open/Net/FreeBSD.

    NetBSD (1.6.1) had the crashing issues with installer, and once I finally got it installed I too had issues with packages compiling.

    So I decided to skip instead ot OpenBSD 3.4. Got that installed, only to discover that the applications it supports in its ports tree is smaller and not up to date.

    I then looked into FreeBSD. Now I have an external monitor I use with my Ultra5, and both recently (5.2) and a while back (5.1 or 5.0) I simply couldn't navigate past the initial boot screen to complete the install. The problem with FreeBSD on sparc is that it retains its curses-based install GUI, which renders in some horrible way (term is fucked up) when using a monitor. There are 4 options you can try when using installing, and none of them worked to give me a readable screen. To date I haven't tried installing via console, which could be the key.

    Either way, OpenBSD has proved to be the easiest and most stable for installing on Ultrasparc to date, so that's what I'm recommending at present to people at work (have it on a few Ultra 5's and E220's).

    --
    Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
    1. Re:Similar problems by PrettyBoy_75 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I ran into the same problem when trying to install FreeBSD on my Ultra 5. Try using CTRL N and CTRL B (or CTRL P... been a while :) ) to navigate.

    2. Re:Similar problems by nutznboltz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try a serial console. Just plug the ttya port into another computer's serial port with a null modem and use tip or cu.

    3. Re:Similar problems by Octorian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I was sorely disappointed with my only recent OpenBSD/sparc64 experience. However, I will say that OpenBSD/sparc runs beautifully.

      I had been using an old SPARCstation 5 for something, under OpenBSD, and wanted to upgrade to a more powerful (and rackmount) machine. So I got myself a nice Netra t1 105.

      Initially I tried OpenBSD/sparc64 3.3 on it, of course. Well, getting it to work with a mirrored root disk was very painful, and resulted in 30+ minute boot times whenever there was an impropper shutdown. Beyond that, it did work, though the machine was performing much more slowly than I had expected. Furthermore, I had to do some digging and manually apply a kernel patch so that one of the network interfaces wouldn't randomly crap out every once in a while.

      Then, given that this box was doing some network stuff, I wanted more ethernet ports beyond the two "hme" controllers built-in. So I picked up a QFE (4-port hme 10/100 NIC) and stuck it in the PCI slot. OpenBSD totally hated that, and I never had any luck getting it to work. Sure it detected the card, but forget about forwarding packets. A friend of mine was using a similar card in his box, though he only had one on-board hme. Only one port on the card worked for him. So I'll guess OpenBSD doesn't like more than 2 hme controllers on a machine.

      Eventually I had enough, and just switched the machine over to Solaris 9. I found some good guides for locking it down, and all the software I needed would run on that OS. So after a little bit of effort, I managed to convert the box. It now runs perfectly, all my ethernet ports work, the on-board watchdog timer is supported, and software mirroring of the root disk works painlessly. Oh, and the machine is also performing MUCH faster now.

      At this point, I will still say OpenBSD/sparc works wonderfully on the older 32-bit SPARC boxes, but I've lost all faith in the sparc64 port. I'm still eager to see how FreeBSD/sparc64 turns out, though, but right now Solaris just "works better" for all the UltraSPARC machines (and their associated hardware) I have and use.

  9. Help with Non-Contaminated Libraries!!! ANYONE??? by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've often wondered why some companies choose to use Linux when they are unwilling to show their source code. It clearly has not been to the advantage of the companies involved to be exposed as not complying with the GPL. It is risky business decision to choose to ignore license issues.

    Perhaps more attention will be given to the *BSD family with it's technically very good OS and a free license.

    EVERY TIME I see a thread here about a company pushing a Linux-based product, I ask the same question: Is there ANY compiler/linker/library product I can purchase that is guaranteed by its manufacturer to be UN-contaminated by the GPL?

    Does the Intel C/C++ "compiler" for Linux make such a claim?

    Does the Metrowerks C/C++ "compiler" make such a claim?

    Novell/Mono/Ximian/C#/.NET???

    ANYONE??????????

  10. Speed is by no means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what these processors are known for. Benchmarks show that. That's not to say it's a bad processor, and maybe the Efficeon will turn out a little sweeter. Meanwhile, there isn't a whole lot about Transmeta's stuff that stands out. Except the wacky design.

  11. Re:Old story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one. The researchers here appear to be putting an academic imprimateur on the model discussed in 2000.

  12. SGI VW 320 & 540 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    SGI VW 320 & 540 are only supported by Red Hat 6 and Microsoft NT/2K.

    <This is intended to taunt NetBSDers into supporting these crazy boxes!>

  13. Re:Help with Non-Contaminated Libraries!!! ANYONE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, they all are.

    But I'm still hoping for TenDRA to become the default compiler for BSD.

  14. Platform support by Octorian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Honestly, there is nothing special about those machines, beyond that they are just weird PC boxes.

    However, it would be nice if open-source OSes did support SGI's real MIPS-based machines a bit better. All the ports I've seen so far do not provide very good support for the hardware beyond the basics. And frankly, if they can't support the graphics hardware, what is even the point of running something other than IRIX?

    Another platform I'd like to see support for would be the older microchannel-based non-CHRP IBM RS/6000 machines. They are frankly quite nice boxes, but the only OS they'll run is AIX. (which isn't bad, but tends to confuse hobbyists who aren't multi-platform savvy)

    1. Re:Platform support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has almos some support for everything in an indy, except ISDN, and VINO (video in) (there are almost working patches for video-in floating around however...). Local console and X now works on both Linux and NetBSD, it is just slow making it almost worthless.