HP Still Porting Linux to 64 bit PA RISC

Fungai wrote with an update to the on-going HP/Puffin Group story. There'd been some confusion with the recent purchase of Puffin Group by Linuxcare, but HP has confirmed that they will port Linux to their 64 bit PA-RISC chips. HP will still be partnering with Puffin Group to do it, with results expected in the first half of 2000.

Comments

Just a question

[choctaw]

Has anyone here used a RISC processor? I haven't, and I'm curious as to the performance level of these things running Linux....

Re:Just a question

[NYC]

Apple and SGI computers are some examples of machines that run on RISC processors.

Apple computers are known for their amazing speed (the latest G3s were not suitable for export) but their inferior OS loses any benefits in speed gained from the hardware. Of course, you can always install a RISC-based version of Linux like mklinux on a Mac.

SGI machines like the Origin server series are among the fatest computers in commercial use today. My SGI O2 workstation is only 200MHz, but since the processor is a RISC processor, it is comparable to a 300+MHz CICS processor.

--Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!

Re:Just a question

[Tower]

Alphas are RISC, and Linux has run (extremely well) on them for quite some time now. The floating point performance on the alphas is incredble - they work great.

Links

[NYC]

Here are some links to linux ports on RISC processors:

Apple Macintosh

• Yellow Dog Linux
• MkLinux
• LinuxPPC

SGI

• SGI Linux
  
  --Ivan, weenie NT4 user: bite me!

Not blinding speed or price-performance

[twit]

I think (the eternal IMHO) that the major advantage that a PA-RISC port presents is not blinding speed on the desktop or price-performance, but access to a family of mission-critical hardware. Linux, developed on PC's and ported to a wide range of workstation hardware, has historically been short on big iron. Access to PA-RISC hardware, whether legacy or new machines, will go a long way towards remedying that deficit.

If people (myself among them) spoke out against linux's reliability on commodity hardware, no one can question the reliability and stability of HP's unix hardware. It would be easy to sell me on a HP unix box running Linux - or at least, it would be, if I was still doing that kind of stuff.

--

The point?

[Signal 11]

Why can't linux people just accept that their OS' niche is a unix-like OS running on commodity hardware? We've seen another good example of an OS that tries to be all things, and look how it failed. Do we really want to take the industry down that path again? Linux works exceptionally well on the hardware it was designed for: namely, x86 hardware. It runs on macintoshes, HP machines, Alphas, and god only knows what else... but those are all inferior ports.

Code sharing is good. Code bloat is not. My vote is to fork the existing ports into seperate kernel dev teams and refocus linux. If we spread ourselves too thin, we'll release about as often as Microsoft. *stepping down off the soap box* Mark me down now.

Re:The point?

[Ami Ganguli]

I'm not sure how 'code bloat' gets into this. The support for a given platform is compiled in only for that platform so it doesn't really matter how many platforms are supported.

'Spreading ourselves too thin' might appear to be a valid critisism, except that the same people aren't maintaining all the ports. HP wants a port to their hardware, so they're paying people to do it. The burden on the core developers is minimal, PLUS the HP (actually Puffin Group) staff might find solutions to problems that could benefit everybody.

The beauty of having lots of platforms is that we can move easily from one 'commodity' platform to another as the economics change. ia32 hardware may provide a nice price point today, but if AMD or Transmeta or Sam's Chip Factory comes up with a fast, cheap platform, we know the transition will be easy and smooth.

I suspect that the ia64 port would have been far more difficult had 64-bit support not already been in place for Alpha. Similarly, changes introduced for ia64 will probably be good for Alpha, Sparc64, and HP. I just don't see the down side that you you're worried about.

Re:The point?

[sterwill]

Inferior ports?! You are just completely wrong! Tell me which "inferior ports" you've actually _used_ (installed, used, and maintained). Projects you've "heard about on Slashdot" do not count. I'll wager you haven't actually used Linux on real hardware (something that's evolved since 1980, like the Alpha, Sparc, or PowerPC, or MIPS, or PA-RISC), or you'd know just how exactly ignorant your assertion is.

I wrote this comment on a 333 MHz PowerBook running Linux 2.3.22, in X at 1024x768 at 32 bpp, with all the software I need to get all my work done. Every piece of hardware is supported, and it's a better laptop value than any Intel-based offering. The 56K internal modem works, the 10/100 Ethernet works, the 14.1" screen is beautiful, the media bays (batteries, CD-ROM, DVD-ROM) work great, power management is superb (5 hours off a single battery), audio in and out, two completely useful USB ports (one of which runs a Logitech mouse when I'm parked at a desk), and even S-Video _and_ VGA output, and external SCSI. All of this with no "docking stations" -- the ports are right on the back. And they're $2499.

I also use Linux on the Alpha, and the Alpha architecture is supported as well as, and possibly better, than the PowerPC architecture.

Have you run any of these?

--

Re:Great, but does it matter?

[dillon_rinker]

Isn't it interesting, then, that the way they generate buzz for their box is to port Linux to it?

Re:Why PA Risk? Alpha's are faster and cheaper.

[corporateSlave]

PA-RISC is in a deep coma. Limbo land. The problem I see is that they have allready commited to IA64. most of HP's brain trust is working on Mickinley. and the left over is working on PA-8600.

Do they have the resources to start a new design now? and if they did when will it be done?

HP corporate press and some analysts (Gartner?) disagree with the death of PA-RISC. If this PR is correct, HP must already be working on at least PA-8700. The .hp.com in my e-mail address means I can't comment further. And even when PA-RISC dies, the ideas aren't completely dead. Does the IA64 instruction set look more like Pentium or PA-RISC?

Seems to me some people will feel comfortable going to IA-64 right away, and some will probably take a while. Just think how many folks are still running really old OSes. There'll also probably be a short period where the performance of PA-RISC and other current processors overlaps with IA-64 performance, just as there is probably some overlap between Pentium and PA-RISC today.

Linux on PA-RISC gives people the option to convert to Linux sooner and/or cheaper, either converting their existing HP boxes or purchasing new ones, and then switch to Linux on IA-64 later -- two small steps instead of one large one. (Some will continue using HP-UX of course)

This sounds like customer choice, which seems like a good idea.

But the best reason for Linux on PA-RISC is that I have fun helping make it happen!

Re:2038

[Xenu]

The leap second is normally inserted at the end of the last day in June or December. The last leap second was added to December, 1998. The sequence was:

1998-12-31 23:59:59
1998-12-31 23:59:60
1999-01-01 00:00:00

Note that there can be 61 seconds in a minute when a leap second is inserted.

Some Unix systems pretend that leap seconds do not exist, others attept to take them into account, using tables of leap seconds. It might be better to run the system clock on TAI and convert to UTC or local time with a leap second table.