Re: FW: WTT: 1.5G of PC2700 for 1G of PC100]

[Michael C. Vergallen-2]

Jochen Kunz wrote:
> Sure. If you have sparc64 hardware, you are used to Solaris and you are
> already running Solaris, why switch to an other OS if there is no
> immediate need? Never change a runing system! :-)
> Especially as sparc64 hardware is designed to run Solaris and Solaris
> is designed to run on sparc64 hardware.
>  
Your statement is a generalization, you seem to ignore that sometimes
one would switch os on old 64 bit Hardware
 who doesn4t have support in solaris 10 anymore to Netbsd or a other os
just because of the security risks involved.


Michael
Message-ID: <4822047E.1080904@...>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 21:35:26 +0200
From: "Michael C. Vergallen" <mvergall@...>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080507)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: The Rescue List <rescue@...>
Subject: Re: [rescue] FW: WTT: 1.5G of PC2700 for 1G of PC100
References: <20080505190028.GB6297@jd-colo>
  <DABB67A101236A43B25C94A2BE2F2EF603709A44@...>
  <20080505194647.GE6297@jd-colo>
  <20080506162609.6a149642.jkunz@...>
  <20080506173355.GF10848@jd-colo>
  <20080507210447.e7cf1bdd.jkunz@...>
In-Reply-To: <20080507210447.e7cf1bdd.jkunz@...>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Jochen Kunz wrote:
> Sure. If you have sparc64 hardware, you are used to Solaris and you are
> already running Solaris, why switch to an other OS if there is no
> immediate need? Never change a runing system! :-)
> Especially as sparc64 hardware is designed to run Solaris and Solaris
> is designed to run on sparc64 hardware.
>  
Yes & No ... I would switch old 64 bit Hardware who doesn4t have support
in solaris 10 anymore to Netbsd
just because of the security risks involved so if you have older Sun
equipment like Ultra 1, or Ultra  2 equipment
that has older Ultra cpus I would switch OS on them for security
reaseons. Becuase Solaris 9 is EOLed and has no
patches being produced  anymore.
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Jochen Kunz]

On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:20:16 +0200
"Michael C. Vergallen" <mvergall@...> wrote:

> Your statement is a generalization, you seem to ignore that sometimes
> one would switch os on old 64 bit Hardware
>  who doesn4t have support in solaris 10 anymore to Netbsd or a other
> os just because of the security risks involved.
I wrote my statement in the context of:
"The machine is already running Solaris."
And as we are talking about ZFS it must be a fairly recent version of
Solaris.

Sure, if you have e.g. a Ultra 1 or even 32 bit sparc hardware, NetBSD
may be the better choice.
--


tsch__,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Michael C. Vergallen-2]

Jochen Kunz wrote:

> On Thu, 08 May 2008 00:20:16 +0200
> "Michael C. Vergallen" <mvergall@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> Your statement is a generalization, you seem to ignore that sometimes
>> one would switch os on old 64 bit Hardware
>>  who doesn4t have support in solaris 10 anymore to Netbsd or a other
>> os just because of the security risks involved.
>>    
> I wrote my statement in the context of:
> "The machine is already running Solaris."
> And as we are talking about ZFS it must be a fairly recent version of Solaris.
>  

Was not clear to me what you where implying ... in that context yes I
agree with you.
However personaly I dont  see  the point  to  it  on  anything besides
the latest 64 bit hardware ... also becuase it is still not supported by
other OS4s .
So  in a mixed  environement  it can  be  a hassle. Like when you need
to export
nfs mounts etc it causes hassle I dont need at the moment...
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue

[Shannon Hendrix]

On May 8, 2008, at 04:05 , Michael C. Vergallen wrote:


> Was not clear to me what you where implying ... in that context yes  
> I agree with you.
> However personaly I dont  see  the point  to  it  on  anything besides
> the latest 64 bit hardware ...

It ran pretty well on ten year old 64-bit hardware for me, but I did  
finally get rid of that hardware for other reasons.

> also becuase it is still not supported by other OS4s .

That's temporary.  It is already running on Mac and FreeBSD, and  
probably will run on FUSE on Linux soon.

There are rumors that Apple will use it for their primary filesystem.  
They've needed something like it for a long time.

> So  in a mixed  environement  it can  be  a hassle. Like when you  
> need to export
> nfs mounts etc it causes hassle I dont need at the moment...

Just curious, what sort of hassles didi you find there?

I've not had any so far, though I am still bothered by the idea of the  
filesystem storing all configuration rather than it being in files.

Too many years of doing it in /etc/fstab and /etc/exports I guess.




--
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."
_______________________________________________
rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue