[SunRescue] Solaris >2.5.1 on 4/600MP & 4/330 Memory Boards
hyena at interport.net
Thu Sep 2 16:55:29 CDT 1999
Since we're on the topic of the Sparc 4/6XX, I'd thought I'd ask this
question....Curently I will have 4 of the Cypress 40MHz CPUs, should I
replace with 2 SM81s or 4 RossHypersparcs/200MHz/512Kb, or a third
alternative? Im looking to run Solaris 2.5.1 on this, so compatibility
with Solaris 2.6 and 7 isn't neccessary. Any help would be appreciated.
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, James Lockwood wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Bjrn Ramqvist wrote:
> > What do you mean by the old Ross' CPU modules? From the webpage on
> > false.net it says clearly:
> > "It can be made to work but only if it is an MP system (not the older
> > CPU's)."
> Solaris 2.6 and up removed support for the Cypress/Ross/Fujitsu SM100's
> (Cypress sold Ross technology to Fujitsu during that time). If you have
> SuperSPARC or HyperSPARC CPU's then you can run 2.6.
> > My memory reminds me of a discussion here some months ago about older
> > and newer revisions of the SM100 Ross CPU modules. The older ones (rev
> > 7?) didn't support MP, but the newer ones (rev 8?) do. We currently have
> > a 4/600MP system with dual-SM100 rev8 CPU modules, runs SMP fine, so
> > should I rely on the text in that matter?
> > Although, the example on the webpage was a 4/600MP with dual-SM51's, so
> > that should be a good reason to rely on the fact that SM100's isn't
> > supported at all.
> The web page is inaccurate. The distinction is that 2.6 and above don't
> support the SM100 of any revision.
> > But then again, why should Sun drop support for CPU-modules?
> Because the SM100 is a hack and wasn't shipped with any other system (also
> has an MMU which isn't quite like either sun4c or other sun4m, IIRC).
> It's also incredibly slow, it makes zero sense for anyone to be using them
> now. A single SM41 will outperform both CPU's of an SM100 with ease.
> > I guess that makes sense in what people say that "the SS600 is
> > considered a rackmounted SS10"...
> A rackmounted SS10 with a VME interface, no DBRI, most with slower SCSI
> (5MB/sec SCSI-II) controllers, and a more restrictive mbus/sbus slot
> layout (second mbus slot chews up sbus space). The memory bus is nearly
> identical, down to the access timings (both use an 80ns cycle), the only
> real difference is RAM form-factor.
> I always wondered why Sun didn't write a driver to run IP over the VME bus
> and release the SparcCluster 1 as a slew of 4/600 boards in one box.
> Using SS10's and a 10mbps switch wasn't nearly as nice of an approach, and
> a shared 25MB/sec VME bus would have been faster than ethernet even with
> overhead (a token-passing arrangement might have been the best here to
> saturate the bus).
> > BTW, is there anyone out there with 4/330 Memory Boards leftover? You
> > know those small, 6U VME boards that couldn't be fit anywhere else?
> > Since the 4/330 is lacking VME-slots, I'd be happy to expand my 4/330
> > past the 32MB RAM.
> I believe you mean 3U. I don't have any but they turn up regularly.
> Rescue maillist - Rescue at sunhelp.org
More information about the rescue