Illumos to drop SPARC Support
github.comI have a uniquely soft spot for SPARC, having written and disassembled a bunch of SPARC early in my career. If this is its swan song, I'll take the moment to share some code the takes advantage of the odd (today) delay slot architecture to implement instruction picking:
https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/blob/master/usr/src/...
The trick uses a branch in the delay slot of a jmp--a decidedly unusual construction. At the time I found this to be extremely clever and elegant... but apparently not so clever as to warrant a comment.
Can you explain how that works or what it does? I understand delay slots, but I didn't know it was legal to have a branch in a delay slot, so I don't really know what this means :)
You mean the total lack of comments didn't help? ;-)
SPARC has two attributes (I hesitate to call them features) that this code interacts with: register windows and a delay slot. Register windows are a neat idea that leads to some challenging pathologies, but in short: the CPU has a bunch of registers, say 64, only 24 of which are visible at any moment. There are three classes of windowed registers: %iN (inputs), %lN (local), %oN (output). When you SAVE in a function preamble, the register windows rotate such that the callers %os become your %is and you get a new set of %ls and %os. There are also 8 %gN (global) registers. Problems? There's a fixed number of registers so a bunch of them effectively go to waste; also spilling and filling windows can lead to odd pathologies. The other attribute is the delay slot which simply means that in addition to a %pc you have an %npc (next program counter) and the instruction after a control flow instruction (e.g. branch, jmp, call) is also executed (usually, although branches may "annul" the slot).
This code is in DTrace where we want to know the value of parameters from elsewhere in the stack, but don't want to incur the penalty of a register window flush (i.e. writing all the registers to memory). This code reaches into the register windows to pluck out a particular value. It turns out that for very similar use cases, Bryan Cantrill and I devised the same mechanism completely independently in two unrelated areas of DTrace.
How's it work?
We rotate to the correct register window (note that this instruction is in the delay slot just for swag): https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/blob/master/usr/src/...
Then we jmp to %g3 which is an index into the table of instructions below (depending on the register we wanted to snag): https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/blob/master/usr/src/...
The subsequent instruction is a branch always (ba) to the next instruction. So:
%pc is the jmp and %npc is the ba. The jmp sets %npc to an instruction in dtrace_getreg_win_table and %pc is the old %npc thus points to the ba. The ba sets %npc to be the label 3f (the wrpr) and %pc is set to the old %npc, the instruction in the table. Finally the particular mov instruction from the table is executed and %pc is set to the old %npc at label 3f.
Why do it this way? Mostly because it was neat. This isn't particularly performance critical code; a big switch statement would probably have worked fine. In the Solaris kernel group I remember talking about interesting constructions like this a bit around the lunch table which is probably why Bryan and I both thought this would be a cool solution.
I'm not aware of another instance of instruction picking in the illumos code base (although the DTrace user-mode tracing does make use of the %pc/%npc split in some cases).
It would be nice to add this to the code in form of a comment, for historical preservation reasons
With Linux having caught up with key Solaris features in recent years (DTrace -> eBPF, Zones -> Namespaces, ZFS -> ZFS on Linux), I always thought that the main reason to use Illumos would be first-class SPARC support. With that now dropped, I'm concerned that Illumos soon become irrelevant. Are there any compelling reasons left to use Illumos, other than being something for those who just want a free Solaris alternative?
In my opinion Linux hasn't caught up.
* Namespaces don't come close to FreeBSD jails or Solaris / Illumos Zones. There is a reason Docker hosters put their Docker tenants in different hardware VM's. Because the isolation is too weak.
* Due to CDDL and GPL problems ZFS on Linux will always be hard to use making every update cycle like playing Russian roulette.
And there are other benefits. Like SMF offers nice service management while not providing half an operating system like systemd.
The problem with this jails/zones stuff is that I don't know anyone who seriously trusts jails and zones for real multitenant workloads anyways. The dealbreaker problem remains a shared kernel attack surface between tenants. It's one thing to propose that Zones are better than namespaces (they probably are), but another thing to cross the threshold where the distinction is meaningful in practice.
At Joyent, we deployed public-facing multitenant workloads based on zones (and before that, jails) for many years. We seriously trusted it -- and had serious customers who seriously depended on it. So, now you know someone!
To be fair, y'all had some serious vulnerabilities, including zone escapes and arbitrary kernel memory reads, discovered by @benmmurphy.
Yes, though I would like to believe that Ben's responsible disclosure coupled with our addressing those vulns (and auditing ourselves for similar) reflect exactly that seriousness around multitenant security. And for whatever it's worth, one of those vulnerabilities -- which was a bug in my code! -- very much informed by own thinking about the inherent unsafety of C, underscoring the appeal of Rust. So I am grateful in several dimensions!
If you have a kernel implemented in Rust, (1) you should shout that from the rooftops and (2) use whatever isolation mechanism you like on it.
They're starting with the bootloader and management engine. That's a tough enough ocean to boil.
Give them some time to get Rust above that.
Sadly Apple decided for a safe dialect of C for similar purposes e.g. iBoot, where they could have gone with Swift or Rust instead.
Very big ocean indeed.
To this, all I can say is that I spent from 2005-2014, and then from 2016-2020, doing nothing but security evaluations of products, probably about 60% of which were serverside multitenant SAAS systems of one form or another, and I don't remember ever evaluating (or overseeing the evaluation of) a system that relied on Jails or Zones. Lots of Docker! And, until a few years ago, multitenant Docker isolation was an infamous joke! I'm not sticking up for it!
You can look at the recent history of Linux kernel LPEs --- there has been sort of a renaissance because of mobile devices --- and count all the ways any shared-kernel multitenant system would have broken down. At the end of the day, it's not so much about predicting whether your system can get owned up (it can), so much as: "what do I need to do when there is a kernel LPE announced on my platform". If you're doing shared-kernel isolation, the right answer to that question is usually "fire drill". It's not a noodley thought-leadership kind of question; it's a simple, practical concern.
There were also tons of providers who trusted Linux containers for VPS hosting.
How'd that turn out?
I haven't heard any stories of people being hacked via container escape, but the whole VPS industry was so low-stakes that maybe customers didn't expect good isolation anyway.
And needless to say it became a billion dollar business, with a great product.
They were acquired for $170m.
I stand corrected. Still great product, business and team.
I'm sure they're great. No part of what I have to say about this has anything to do with how competent they are.
Security requirements (and awareness) have increased over the years, have they not?
They definitely have! And we had a (zones-based) public cloud through it all. On that note, Alex Wilson's description of working with Robert Mustacchi on mitigating Meltdown by adding KPTI to illumos[0] definitely merits a read!
Also, tools for improving Docker for multi-tenant workloads exists, like gVisor. I don’t think equivalents exist for jails/zones really.
gVisor isn't a shared-kernel multitenant system; it's essentially kernel emulation. It's a much stronger design.
I mostly mean that it is intended to be a solution to run containers from multiple tenants on the same host. Though I do agree, being essentially a kernel in itself, it is a bit in a different wheelhouse. It still is a huge value add that you can implement something like that on top of Docker, imo.
You can run container workloads in "real" VMs too; for instance, check out Kata Containers. Containers are a way of packaging applications; confusingly, they happen to also have a reference standard runtime associated with them. But you don't have to use it.
Of course, and that's the value of the abstraction to me. Docker itself is obviously nothing to do with the Linux container technologies themselves that make up the equivalent functionality of FreeBSD jails, but I'm not aware of any equivalent abstraction that works around jails or zones even though it might be possible. So the way I see containers on Linux is not literally a composition of kernel features like cgroups or seccomp, but as an abstract thing that can be composed out of various primitives. And in practice, there's a number of different runtimes around it, including Docker clones like Podman, or tools that manage effectively chroots much closer to what you would do with jails.
That said, I could just be completely wrong, and there could be similar things that can be done using jails and zones. But when I looked around for similar art with FreeBSD jails, either with regards to Docker's style of packaging and distribution, or with regards to additional layers like gVisor, it didn't seem like a thing well-suited to that kind of composition. In comparison, jails, at least, seem kind of like more powerful chroots. To me this is a pretty big difference versus Linux "containers".
My mental model of Zones and Jails is that they are a cleaner, more convenient, less error-prone way of expressing a modern, minimally-privileged, locked down Docker runtime. You won't catch me arguing that Zones aren't better than Docker, but the u->k attack surface is untenable for multitenant workloads.
Similar to Xen?
Much weirder than Xen.
> The dealbreaker problem remains a shared kernel attack surface between tenants.
Also, now, extremely subtle and hard-to-mitigate timing attacks between tenants.
In fairness, that's an attack class that's very difficult to eradicate even with virtualization.
> In my opinion Linux hasn't caught up.
I completely agree. I love Linux and it’s easily my preferred desktop OS but when it comes to stuff like ZFS, containerisation and other enterprise features, FreeBSD and Solaris are just more unified and consistent. A lot of it has to do with Linux being a hodgepodge of different contributors resulting in every feature effectively being a 3rd party feature. Which I think is the problem Pottering was trying to solve. And in many ways that’s quite a strength too. But ultimately it boils down to the old Perl mantra of “There's more than one way to do it” and how it’s fun for hackers but FreeBSD et al add the “but sometimes consistency is not a bad thing either” part of the mantra doesn’t too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_more_than_one_way_...
> Namespaces don't come close to FreeBSD jails or Solaris / Illumos Zones. There is a reason Docker hosters put their Docker tenants in different hardware VM's. Because the isolation is too weak.
This is largely a myth, please provide an namespace-related CVE that has gone unpatched to support your argument. The reason they run as VMs is that hypervisors run on ring 0 and require higher privileges than the kernel, therefore they are naturally more secure. Like Namespaces, Zones and Jails are also managed by their respective kernels. If there were any major hosters running managed services for Zones and Jails, you can bet they would implement them in a similar way.
> Due to CDDL and GPL problems ZFS on Linux will always be hard to use making every update cycle like playing Russian roulette.
You're right in that the CDDL causes complication but I don't consider this to be a compelling reason to use Illumos. Many who want to use ZFS on Linux will use it and get it to work despite the licensing issues and complications.
> Like SMF offers nice service management while not providing half an operating system like systemd.
SMF is relatively nice (apart from the use of XML) and like you, I would not touch systemd barge pole. Despite systemd making a lot noise in major distros, there are plenty alternative distros for those of us who don't want to use it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Solaris guy, it made my career. I just fear that by dropping SPARC, Illumos have put the final nail in their own coffin.
> I just fear that by dropping SPARC, Illumos have put the final nail in their own coffin.
If that were true, most illumos users today would be SPARC users. There would be more than a couple of people working on SPARC support, and not merely as a part-time hobby. There would be software support for a SPARC machine that was sold some time after 2011.
Instead, something like 99% of the people running illumos are doing so on 64-bit x86 machines. Dropping SPARC support will allow us to move forward much more easily with enhancements to the dramatically more relevant x86 bits. If anything I expect it will allow us to do interesting things that would garner new interest, like using Rust to implement bits of the operating system.
Thanks for the reply. That surprises me but I'm glad to hear that x86 support is strong. It does lead me to wonder, what sort of things are people using Illumos for? Maybe it's time I checked it out. :)
> This is largely a myth, please provide an namespace-related CVE that has gone unpatched to support your argument.
What I mean is that if you use LXC namespace's as a container it is going to be an insecure container. Simply because LXC namespace's are not containers and are not going to provide a fully isolated environment. Namespace's are low-level building blocks which, together with other technologies (for example a virtualized network stack), you can use to make fully isolated containers. And that's why most hosters just took a shortcut and put the whole thing in a hardware VM to ensure tenants are fully isolated. Which I think is a shame since you also get all the overhead of a hardware VM.
So sure, you can _make_ something like jails or zones on Linux if you combine a bunch of things and provide the glue. But there is no concept of a container like jails or zones in Linux. Which leads to other problems such as there not being any tooling to mange the (non-existant) container.
> The reason they run as VMs is that hypervisors run on ring 0 and require higher privileges than the kernel, therefore they are naturally more secure.
I don't know if I fully understand what your saying here but I think you mean that with a type 2 hypervisor the hypervisors kernel runs in a more privileged mode on the CPU then the virtualized kernels it manages and that provides additional security?
I don't really see how a type 2 hypervisor would conceptually give additional security in regards to a type 1 hypervisor (where a single kernel can provide multiple OS instances such a FreeBSD with Jails or Solaris / Illumos with Zones). Everything that is not the "main" kernel always executes in a less privileged mode then the kernel executing them on the CPU. For example no user process executes on Ring 0 on a "normal" (ie. non-hypervisor) OS. With containers this is no different. Hardware virtualization doesn't give a big conceptual advantage in that regard as far as I know.
Solaris SPARC is one of the few OSes in production taming C with hardware memory tagging (ADI).
With Linux that will eventually happen in ARM, but currently only Android is adopting it, who know when it will ever come to upstream enabled by default like on Android.
>ZFS on Linux
its been said in the thread already but this was always a non-starter. Torvalds even said so himself. CDDL was the last poison pill of a dying giant who couldnt pull its foot from the well.
What we, er, the linux community, chose instead, was BTRFS. It isnt ZFS, but its made incredible strides. for most use cases, it is a reasonable and working replacement for ZFS.
> for most use cases, it is a reasonable and working replacement for ZFS.
That is a huuuuge overstatement for the current state of Btrfs. In some specific domains it is a working replacement. But for most domains it still falls far behind ZFS in terms of stability, resiliency or even ease of use.
By all means if you want to use btrfs then go for it. But the favourable comparisons people make when comparing btrfs to ZFS is a combination of wishful thinking and not having really bullied their fs into those extreme edge cases where the cracks begin to show. And frankly I’d rather depend on something that has had those assurances for 10+yrs already than have the hassle of explaining downtime to restore data on production systems.
> What we, er, the linux community, chose instead, was BTRFS. It isnt ZFS
Speak for yourself. As a part of “the Linux community” I gave btrfs a fair chance, but stopped using it because it constantly failed on me in ways no other fs had done before and didn’t protect my data.
ZFS is rock solid and I’ve never had any of the issues I had with btrfs.
So as a member of “the Linux community” you claim to unilaterally represent I put such petty license-politics aside and choose the file system which serves my needs best, and that is ZFS.
BTRFS is the only fs I recall having lost data to (rather it corrupts data, i.e. data of one file is found in another) as late as 2018.
I lost data and had to restore from 12 hour old backups one too many times with BTRFS. XFS + Ext4 for me from here on out, but that's one of the great things about Linux: lots of choices.
Lamentably, for those of us that just use linux, the lots of choices seem weird and frankly a little scary (Stories of data loss with BTRFS I have heard before.) I use the default Ext4? I think?
But as a believer in open source, I really would love it if the choices we had were so much superior to the proprietary stuff that was out there that it made using an open source OS a no brainer.
XFS all the way down...or ZFS (on FreeBSD)
What is the latest on RAID-5/6 support for BTRFS. RAID-Z has its issues (saying this as the triple- and double-parity author), but it's been stable.
As far as Ive heard it's still pretty iffy. Since you were involved with the zfs side of things what are your thoughts on the upcoming zfs draid bits? I don't have specific need for them myself but they look really attractive for building a new pool to replace my aging drives.
Unfortunately I've been completely out of the loop on the draid stuff.
>What we, er, the linux community, chose instead, was BTRFS.
Isn't that putting politic before technical excellence, something the Linux crowd is proud of? Other than in place volume expansion, there is no technical reason to choose BTRFS over ZFS (for now.)
I don't really see a killer feature from BTRFS that would persuade me to take a chance with it.
It's being pragmatic. Linux has typically placed freedom ahead of pretty much everything else.[1] All else being equal, sure you want the best technical solution. But if it doesn't fit the definition of freedom that Linux requires, how otherwise good a solution is doesn't matter. So the main 'killer' feature of BTRFS is that it fits the licensing requirements for integration into Linux. Linux has a great many problems, but being sticklers for a particular type of license isn't one of them IMO.
[1] This isn't just idealism. See Oracle v. Google for an example of what happens if you play fast and loose with licenses and a malicious actor. Google eventually won, but how many millions of dollars did that victory cost them? Oracle would love Linux developers to blunder their way into the receiving end of a lawsuit.
>Isn't that putting politic before technical excellence, something the Linux crowd is proud of?
It's not unprecedented. The adoption of systemd was forced on distros through political pressure, and not for technical reasons.
If you want a truly non-political OS community these days, I think you're basically stuck with OpenBSD. No CoC, no systemd, no political BS at all -just pure tech.
(there's other problems with OpenBSD -performance, mostly; that's why I use windows and Ubuntu instead. But the way they run things is admirable IMO. Blatant BS isn't tolerated.)
systemd wasn't "forced" on distros. The distros adopted it because they liked it.
The thing is that systemd did something quite clever -- it sold itself to the people actually building distributions, which are the people that actually matter the most in regards what system software gets used. It made their jobs easier and less annoying in many ways.
As somebody who's done a lot of packaging and writing of SysV scripts, I can tell you that it's a tiresome and annoying task even for a small amount of software, let alone a whole distro. At that point the unix philosophy loses its luster quite a bit.
> It's not unprecedented. The adoption of systemd was forced on distros through political pressure, and not for technical reasons.
Sorry, I'm going to slag on this.
Anyone could have put in the work to make a better init experience. No one put in that work.
System Management Facility (SMF) existed on Solaris since 2005 (systemd didn't appear until 2011?). launchd on OS X dates to a similar time. Someone could have copied them--no one did.
Even once it became clear that systemd was going through, still nobody could muster the work to put together a viable alternative.
Where's the "meritocracy through code" Linux mantra in all of this?
You can say what you want about Poettering, but he put in the work to write the code. Nobody else did.
Perhaps the problem is that an init system is a metric boatload of finicky code that nobody had the guts or skills to drive to completion?
And for the old-init bigots, sorry, that wasn't working in spite of what you claim. The fact that Windows, OS X, Solaris, etc. (and then systemd) all converged on essentially the same design is because of common needs on modern computers.
There was upstart, but it didn't work very well, mostly because it pre-dated the kernel mechanisms like cgroups that enabled a reliable service manager to be implemented. So it was only used in its sysvinit-compatible mode, not its native upstart mode.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/406397/comments/21 https://bugs.launchpad.net/upstart/+bug/447654/comments/6
The Linux Community is working on BTRFS but if ZFS emerged with a GPLv2 compatible license tomorrow BTRFS would likely be moribund.
Yup. If openzfs was gpl-ed tomorrow morning, btrfs would be dead by tomorrow at lunch time.
When filesystem integrity matters, the filesystem matters more than the OS.
While I mostly use Linux these days, for file servers it must be ZFS, which means whichever OS has first-class support for ZFS. I'm still on Illumos but perhaps will move to FreeBSD at some point.
This is why FreeBSD rebasing its ZFS fork on ZFS-on-Linux made me so scared for the future of FreeBSD. Their one major advantage over Linux and they didn't have the developers to maintain their fork themselves.
ZFS will always be a smoother experience on FreeBSD as opposed to Linux because FreeBSD endorses it. Thus the user land and documentation is written assuming you’re running ZFS. As opposed to Linux where some distros might ship pre-compiled binaries but everything is written assuming you’re not running ZFS. Thus everything takes that extra couple of steps to set up, fix, and maintain.
For example, if you want to use ZFS as a storage for containers on Linux, you have to spend hours hunting around for some poorly maintained 3rd party shell scripts or build some tooling yourself. Whereas on FreeBSD all the tooling around Jails is built with ZFS in mind.
This is why platforms like FreeBSD feel more harmonious than Linux. Not because Linux can’t do the job but because there are so many different contributors with their own unique preferences that Linux is essentially loose Lego pieces with no instructions. Whereas FreeBSD has the same org who manage the kernel, user land and who also push ZFS.
And I say this as someone who loves Linux. There’s room for both Linux and FreeBSD in this world :)
I think "smoother experience on FreeBSD" is a myth -
The standard volume manager on FreeBSD is vinum/geom; ZFS ships its entire separate volume manager to the host OS, so you can't use mount/umount to control mounting a ZFS volume. Maybe it would be okay to move entirely over to ZFS's volume manager but it only supports ZFS's own filesystem, you can't use the ZFS volume manager with a normal FreeBSD UFS2 partition.
In both Linux and FreeBSD, ZFS's bolt-on ARC competes with the kernel's actual page cache for resources instead of properly integrating with it.
It's an out-of-tree filesystem for both OSes. Sure FreeBSD periodically imports it into master from OpenZFS (née ZoL), but all development happens elsewhere, and the SPL is still trying to emulate a Solaris interface on top of both OSes.
Is there any more concrete example of how ZFS is actually better integrated on FreeBSD compared to Linux, say Ubuntu? It takes ZFS snapshots automatically during apt upgrades, root-on-ZFS is a default installer option, etc.
Coincidentally there was a discussion about this yesterday. I agree with a lot of what was posted in it so might be easier to share that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27059551
This branch in particular addresses your points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27062069
Has the latest version of Ubuntu finally made mirrored ZFS root pools painless? Because that was anything but a native out of the box experience (compared to setting up the same on FreeBSD) and that has bit me several times.
I've use ZFS on both FreeBSD and Linux for years and while Ubuntu is closing the gap, ZFS has been the default recommended file system on FreeBSD for close on 10 years already. So it's bound to feel more like a native experience on FreeBSD.
> In a review in DistroWatch, Jesse Smith detailed a number of problems found in testing this release, including boot issues, the decision to have Ubuntu Software only offer Snaps, which are few in number, slow, use a lot of memory and do not integrate well. He also criticized the ZFS file system for not working right and the lack of Flatpak support. He concluded, "these issues, along with the slow boot times and spotty wireless network access, gave me a very poor impression of Ubuntu 20.04. This was especially disappointing since just six months ago I had a positive experience with Xubuntu 19.10, which was also running on ZFS. My experience this week was frustrating - slow, buggy, and multiple components felt incomplete. This is, in my subjective opinion, a poor showing and a surprisingly unpolished one considering Canonical plans to support this release for the next five years."
This was Ubuntu's latest LTS release, which is less than a year old. Granted not all of the criticism levelled against it are ZFS related and granted that's just another persons anecdotal report but it mirror the same experiences everyone else, aside from yourself it seems, raises when switching between Linux and FreeBSD for ZFS storage.
I don't post this as a hater though. I, like others, do still run Ubuntu Server + ZFS for some systems (particularly where I wanted ZFS + Docker) and those systems do run well. But I can't deny that everything requires just a little more effort to get right on Linux because there isn't the assumption you're running ZFS where as on FreeBSD it more or less pre-configured to use ZFS right out of the box because that's the expectation. eg FreeBSD containers tooling is already written to support ZFS where as Linux container tooling isn't.
This is why people talk about a smoother experience on FreeBSD. The file system itself is the same code base and performs largely the same. But it's all the stuff around the edge that is built with the assumption of ZFS on FreeBSD that makes things feel a little less hacked together with duct tape.
My main issue with ZFS is the integrated nature - like systemd for filesystems. My 'alternative' for ZFS isn't BTRFS (awful performance characteristics for my workloads) but LVM coupled with ext4 and mdraid. I get snapshots, reliability, performance and a 'real UNIX' composable toolchain. I miss out on data checksums.
In principle I dislike the coupling of volume manager, raid and filesystem.
But I still think zfs gets most things right; I see the argument for a concistent system managing caching/logs, volumes, data integrity, discard support, compression, snapshots and encryption.
The fact that it's the first serious, open, cross platform solution (Linux, bsd, Mac, winnt) that provides encryption, integrity and filesystem is a nice bonus.
And the integration of snapshots and fs dumps via zfs send/receive is beautiful.
I think zfs makes sense like one fat layer - networking can go below (drdb, iscsi) or on top (iscsi, nfs, cifs).
Encryption need to be somewhat holistic - for making sane performance and data leaking tradeoffs.
Having run all these thing in prod (except BTRFS, it ate a mirror on my desktop), I’ll say that even the LVM + + is so much more hacky than geom on FreeBSD which feels much more ‘Unix’ with a designed composable interface.
Although, I do prefer the durability of XFS or ext4 (depending on workload) vs UFS, and the setup you described is totally maintainable.
No compression..
You could use VDO (I never have) https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp...
>Torvalds even said so himself.
Torvald's comment about ZFS was as uninformed as it gets...and he calls himself an FS-Guy ;(
His comment was more on the wisdom (or otherwise) of running an out of tree filesystem. I think its hard to disagree with him. He went on to say you would never be able to merge the ZFS tree with Linux. Again he's the one who would know what code gets in Linux. His only actual comment against ZFS was that benchmarks didn't look great - which is unsurprising given all the extra work ZFS is doing wrt data integrity than other filesystems in production use.
https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpost...
From the link:
>[ZFS] was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel,
This is deeply ignorant. I feel that Linux has been handicapped by the fact that many developers have never done any serious enterprise administration and thus not having clear understanding of the needs of a set of their users.
Not everything needs to be in the Linux Kernel (and honestly i don't care if it is), looking at the past "linux-sound-system-tragedy" i would say, to make something outside linux is often much better (not 1000's different peoples who thinks it's better the other way around, and you are full of sh* anyway).
>His only actual comment against ZFS was that benchmarks didn't look great
What benchmark? Mines are looking pretty good, with a preheated Arc and with L2 especially...actually much better than any HW-Raid. Compared to Linus, there are Institutes with a bit more than a single 3GB git repository, and the crazy stuff...they need verified backups.
https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/zfs-lustre
If he ever has to improve a Lustre Filesystem of 55 petabyte with ZFS, he can come back, otherwise Linus...shut-up* and be happy with your ext4 (nothing against that one).
* A homage to the old linus-style of having a discussion.
Not really. SmartOS was nice for a while but tbh you may as well go with openstack or proxmox these days.
I used it for hosting a lot of java over the years but these days everyone wants a k8s endpoint and really the kind of hypervisor you are running doesn’t really make a difference.
Shame, it was nice tech.
As someone who has run both side by side on literally identical hardware... no, Linux has not caught up.
Lxc containers vs Solaris Zones... zones clearly wins.
SMF vs systemd (I know that you didn't include this, but it matters)... SMF is clearly superior as well.
This is really sad. The world is heading to a duopoly x86 - arm. Alpha is dead, Mips is almost dead, PA-RISC is dead, POWER is too expensive and RISC-V is mostly nice to have.
A lot of these architecture have some drawbacks in modern times.
Alpha’s loosey-goosey memory model makes multithreaded code on SMP systems more challenging. Linux utilizes its Alpha port as a worst-case testbed for data race conditions in its kernel.
SPARC’s register windows are anachronistic and complicate the implementation of CPUs, and I’d guess also make it more difficult to build OoOE cores (so many SPARC chips are in-order, why?)
POWER isn’t so bad though. It’s open enough where you could build your own lower-cost core if you wanted. There’s nothing intrinsic to the ISA that would mandate an expensive chip other than volume constraints.
PA-RISC put up some great numbers back in the day but between the Compaq acquisition (bringing with it Alpha) and Itanium it was chronically under-resourced. They had a great core in the early 90s and basically just incrementally tweaked it until its death.
You could even build your own Power ISA system with Microwatt, which is fully synthesizeable and growing by leaps and bounds.
https://github.com/antonblanchard/microwatt
(Disclaimer: minor contributor)
I really liked PA-RISC. I thought it was a clean ISA with good performance at the time and avoided many of the pitfalls of other implementations. I think HP didn't want to pour lots of money into it to keep it competitive, though, and was happy to bail out for Itanium when it was viable. My big C8000 is a power hungry titan, makes the Quad G5 seem thrifty.
IDK, I never really liked PA-RISC, but to be fair I was always able to look at it from a hindsight perspective. Looking back it seems to have most of the RISC issues that complicate modern ISA design. Like branch delay slots, having a multiply instruction wasn't RISCy enough for it to bother with, etc.
...and MIPS has the weird branch delay slots as well as pretty horrible code density.
If you look at ARM, particularly the 64-bit version, you'll notice it attempts to squeeze multiple operations into a single 32-bit "instruction". It's still called RISC, but not really "reduced" anymore.
Nowadays RISC seems to mean "load-store architecture" but I think the term should be left in the 90s. CS curriculum is slow to evolve.
Not sure anyone sees "pure" RISC as being an advantage these days though. Didn't Intel demonstrate that you could get RISC-like performance from a CISC ISA even with all the drawbacks of x86 (instruction decoding complexity etc).
> Alpha’s loosey-goosey memory model makes multithreaded code on SMP systems more challenging.
I thought Alpha and ARM were the same with respect to that.
ARM had some fairly nasty to track down XFS file system corruption bugs for quite a while for exactly this reason.
The issue has always been that x86 goes out of its way to generally be more forgiving than the spec.
> Linux utilizes its Alpha port as a worst-case testbed for data race conditions in its kernel.
Is that still true in the present tense? Anybody doing this in 2021? Seems like alpha has been dead for a long time.
Not Linux but the Linux formal memory model. The idea is that the compiler optimizations can be as nasty as the Alpha out of order execution engine and cache. The Linux code has to cater for these optimizations even though it will not result in an actual assembly instruction on anything except the Alpha. Problem is, on Alpha there's indeed an actual price to pay in performance for that nastiness.
I suspect you misunderstand the question. My question is if anybody is presently using alpha hardware to verify such correctness. I understand memory models and barriers etc. and that alpha is one of the most relaxed on this front, that it historically influenced the kernel code and was previously very important test hardware. But the hardware is now very dated, to the point where it might not be good test hardware.
The answer to that question is no, but the Alpha is still considered the least common denominator even though the hardware is obsolete. When people write litmus tests for the Linux memory model they are still validated against Alpha semantics, because compiler optimizations have the same reordering effects as the weird caches of Alpha processors.
(The stroke of genius of the C++11 memory model, compared to the older Java memory model, was that reordering could be treated the same way no matter if performed by processors or compilers).
I know that GCC for example is tested on a bunch of wacky old - read: obsolete ;) - hardware, so it's certainly possible that the same is true for Linux.
On the plus side, at least it looks like it will be a duopoly. For a long time it looked like x86 would eat all other architectures.
It's mildly interesting to me that there's now really no notable big-endian systems left, yet that's still the network byte order. I wonder what the math is for the amount of global wasted CPU cycles on byte-swapping for things that would do a fair amount of that...DNS for example.
> It's mildly interesting to me that there's now really no notable big-endian systems left
That's not correct. s390x is big-endian and well supported in all enterprise distributions such as SLE, RHEL as well as Debian and Ubuntu.
Though as we recently learned, it's considered sufficiently "fringe" by a big chunk of the development community that it's not that big a deal to drop support for it. (Not to imply IBM couldn't be sponsoring development for it more).
If you're talking about the python cryptography fiasco that was dropping support for S390 (31-bit architecture discontinued in 1999). S390X (64-bit architecture introduced in 2000) is supported by Rust, though not necessarily by Python Cryptography.
Incidentally Rust's continued support for S390X is driven primarily by cuviper who works for Red Hat (even before the IBM acquisition).
But s390x support isn't dropped anywhere. On the contrary, IBM spends a lot of money and efforts to make sure it is well supported by free software.
Notable in terms of global cpu capacity. Linux on zSeries is interesting, but only makes financial sense in some pretty limited scenarios.
Power ISA systems are still bi-endian and many systems run big. In fact, the low level OPAL interfaces require you to be in big-endian mode, AIX and i are still BE, and both FreeBSD and OpenBSD have BE flavours for current PowerNV systems. Even a few Linux distros run big (Adelie comes to mind). They're definitely a minority but they're still around.
Power ISA includes an endianness switch in the spec. Power and Power64 are all BE and LE. Most Linux distros only support modern versions on LE though. Debian has a BE port but it's not considered a primary release target.
The last PPC64 release of Ubuntu was 16.04 which is now out of support by about a month. Even on that, the two major web browsers didn't support building on the platform for a long time.
Yes, it can be done if you want enough to do it.
https://catfox.life/2018/11/03/clearing-confusion-regarding-... for more info
Yes, I wasn't claiming that no big endian systems exist. Just that they are overwhelmingly in the minority now, and so the number of ASM byte swapping ops happening is mildy amusing.
Many CPU's have load/store instructions that perform the network byte order swap with no/minimal overhead.
Serialization formats like JSON/YAML/protobuf/etc. would be much more costly by comparison.
IIRC ARM devices can also be big-endian and GCC can even generate big endian 64-bit ARM code:
Yeah, you can find an ARM big endian distribution of, for example NetBSD. No Linux that I can find. Apparently boot issues are a bit tricky.
I have found a Gentoo distribution with big endian for the raspberry pi 3, so it is out there https://github.com/zeldin/linux-1/releases
I'm fairly sure that NetBSD/arm switches to big endian once the kernel is running, the boot process is unchanged.
The thing holding it back for Rpi4 is UEFI+ACPI, so I assume there's some boot process changes.
ACPI is problematic in big endian.
You used to be able to get debian arm-be, but that was a good 15 years ago.
IBM mainframes are big endian, all the Linux distros support them too.
IBM mainframes are big endian essentially because punch cards are big endian.
(Punch cards are big endian because the number 123 is punched as "123". So that's the order a decimal number will be stored in memory. The System/360 mainframes (1964) had a lot of support for decimal numbers and it would be kind of bizarre to store decimal numbers big-endian and binary numbers little-endian so everything was big endian. IBM's current mainframes are compatible with S/360.
On the other hand, in a serial computer, you operate on one bit at a time, so you need to start with the smallest bit for arithmetic. The Intel 8008 was a copy of a serial TTL computer, the Datapoint 2200, so it was little-endian. x86 is based on the 8008, so it kept the little-endian architecture.)
I know of at least one micro arch that'll fuse load and byte swap instructions into a reverse endian load. There's still probably a detectable overhead, but it's not the end of the world to hack on later.
There are various open-source and white-box network switches and routers - do any of them run big-endian? If not, it must be a solved problem (perhaps by fast-path dedicated ASICs).
> If not, it must be a solved problem (perhaps by fast-path dedicated ASICs).
Correct. The data plane of all 'real' networking is done in ASICs and/or NPUs.
Surprisingly less true these days.
Increasingly things seem to be moving towards ASICs for switching and general purpose CPUs (usually with a lot of support from the NIC offload capabilities) for routing, even in 'real' networking hardware.
The vast majority of fabric ASICs would never actually utilize additional TCAM necessary to support full tables at line rate in hardware because top of rack switches do not have that many addressable targets, so it's a wasted cost.
And with DPDK optimized software implementations are achieving zero drop line rate for even 100G+ interfaces for much, much lower cost than full table routing ASICs married to fabric ASICs in a chassis switch.
It's not something a lot of users are aware of -- they often think they've bought an ASIC-based router! -- but essentially all of the big vendors entry and mid-level devices are software routers, and they're even trying to figure out how to sell their NOS experience on whitebox hardware without undercutting their branded hardware.
> It's not something a lot of users are aware of -- they often think they've bought an ASIC-based router! -- but essentially all of the big vendors entry and mid-level devices are software routers, and they're even trying to figure out how to sell their NOS experience on whitebox hardware without undercutting their branded hardware.
To be fair [to you], my original claim is a bit of a tautology as I don't really consider software/CPU based CPE gear to be 'real' networking.
I should be more specific. High radix switches/routers are, unequivocally, not built out of CPUs and software, period. To the point of the original discussion, these concentration points are the only place that byte order overhead would be significant. Others in this thread claim it's not significant even in CPU implementations due to optimized instructions, but I personally can't opine on that.
Last NPU I worked with (admittedly 10+ years ago) was little endian! It used load/store-swapped instructions. (Why? I can only guess that they licensed a little-endian CPU core for other reasons.)
Raptor Computing has some expensive-but-not-that-expensive POWER systems:
x86: 8086 1978 x64: 1999
ARM: 1985 ARM64: 2011
RISC V: 2010
It took x86 about 10 years (1988) to become the most popular, and until 2005 to cause Apple to switch (another 17 years)
It took ARM about 25 years (2010) to become the most popular, and until 2020 to cause Apple to switch (another 10 years)
Apple has been using ARM on and off since 1993. They have more long term organizational experience with ARM than they did with x86.
The Newton, then the iPod, then the iPhone, and now the M1.
The iPhone is a more important device for Apple than the Mac from a revenue point of view, and they've sold more devices with ARM chips in them than they have 68k, PowerPC, or x86. They've sold 2.2 billion iPhones. I can't find an easy number on how many Macintoshes they've sold totally, but I can't imagine it's close to that.
In fact, they used ARM in the Newton (1993) before they used PowerPC in the Power Mac (1994).
“Switch” to what? Apple is one of the founders of ARM and still holds ARM shares IIRC
They sold their 40% stake in ARM when they were short of cash.
Switch from Power PC to Intel, and then from Intel to ARM. I'm using Apple as a tipping point, to when the new architecture was so much better than the old it completely took over. Obviously with 90% of Apple devices being ARM already it was an easier choice for them this time. But as each Architecture gets more power as the market is many times bigger, it may be more difficult for the new entrant.
That's why RISC V's win (if it occurs) will be because it's Open Source. Linux won in 30 years against everyone else due to that.
On the Apple specific case I think any move to RISC V would be because it would want more control than it has with Arm. It could then take the RISC V ISA in the direction it wants.
I'm guessing it already has a lot of influence over Arm though and there are other factors that strongly act in favour of staying with Arm.
If Nvidia takes over Arm though and starts making life difficult for the ecosystem then that could change ....
Apple is really interesting, with chip design being moved inhouse and the ease of which they seem to switch architecture they could move away from ARM if the Nvidia purchase happens. I think they’d want to avoid it, at least for the next 10 years.
It would be interesting to know how important the ARM instruction set is to Apple.
I wouldn't be completely surprised if there is a box running a build of Mac OS for RISC V somewhere in Cupertino!
Seriously though, I suspect that the ISA isn't that important for Apple but on the other hand I think they're probably quite happy with the direction of the Arm ISA (probably had a big say in parts of it) and it would take quite a lot to push them away.
I think that the odds on the Nvidia takeover are quite small by now so don't think a move likely at all.
Apple's aggressive removal of legacy stuff means the apps they do have are mostly kept up to date, so they have that going for them. On the desktop the major Mac OS only apps are now a) owned by Apple and b) rewritten from scratch so are easy to port to ARM, and therefore most likely, anything else.
Will RISC V do what ARM did to x86? Start at the low end, be more open, and slowly take over.
I think that's unlikely - Arm gradually replaced a number of in-house ISA's and designs because the economics didn't support each firm doing their own thing. I'd be surprised if in many cases - except for eg Western Digital - the economics of going RISC-V make sense.
Given Apple's history, and their business style, I don't think they have loyalty to any architecture or any specific technology in particular. They're care about product first, and choose whatever technology they need to choose to get there. https://youtu.be/oeqPrUmVz-o?t=113
It's a great clip - possibly my favourite Jobs clip.
Agree with the point 100% but Apple also has a history of long and sustained investments in key parts of the stack where it sees long term value - including compilers and silicon - and long relationships with suppliers. I suspect their relationship with Arm is in that category and so in the absence of something that is demonstrably better, then that will continue.
> they could move away from ARM if the Nvidia purchase happens.
The Nvidia purchase is irrelevant to Apple. They have a license that won’t be impacted.
The only thing that would make them move away would be a performance bottleneck in the architecture that necessitates a shift.
> Still leaves Apple open to potential Nvidia's changes to the ISA's direction (and the ISA won't stand still). I assume a full fork of the ISA isn't on the cards even for Apple.
> I assume a full fork of the ISA isn't on the cards even for Apple.
Why do you assume this?
If you've seen their license then happy to be corrected but typically an architecture license wouldn't permit them to do precisely what they want with the ISA with no restrictions whatsoever.
I haven’t seen their license but they founded ARM and even though they don’t retain any ownership of the business I have heard that they retain a license that allows them to do pretty much whatever they like with the architecture in their own products.
Pretty sure Apple has a permanent ARM license. They'll watch what happens with Nvidia, but it doesn't really affect them because, as you say, all the secret sauce is in-house.
Does that give them control over the direction of the ISA - suspect not. Don't think it's really the case then that they're unaffected by the Nvidia takeover.
Most companies buy the ARM CPU RTL or an existing hardened core for their chip.
Large companies like Apple have an architectural license and implement the entire instruction set on their own.
I worked for a couple of companies with ARM architectural licenses and there was a large ARM compliance suite of tests that had to be run and pass before you could claim that you made an ARM instruction set compatible CPU.
I have heard that Apple does not claim ARM compatibility and doesn't run the compliance suite which allows them a few shortcuts and other optimizations. Apple only cares about running Mac OS and iOS on their hardware so if they were incompatible with Linux/ARM or Windows/ARM they wouldn't really care.
I haven't been able to verify this. Linux/ARM seems to be running okay so far on the new Apple M1 chips.
I don't know if Apple would be affected much if Nvidia buys ARM. Their architecture license to implement from scracth is probably forever but maybe not
Interesting - especially that Apple gets some latitude on compliance.
Still leaves Apple open to potential Nvidia's changes to the ISA's direction (and the ISA won't stand still). I assume a full fork of the ISA isn't on the cards even for Apple.
I suspect Apple's rights might be spelled out more in the sales contract to SoftBank than in a separate license agreement. Acorn created the ARM processor, but Apple is a cofounder of ARM Holdings (Acorn, Apple, and VLSI Technogology).
Apple switched from Motorola 68k to PowerPC, too, and Sun switched from 68k to SPARC. The Amiga, NeXT, early Palm devices, and the ST were also using members of the 68k family. That's an ISA born in 1979 and largely replacing (and inspired by) the 6800 (1974) which had a 16-bit address bus and 8-bit memory bus and its (binary incompatible but with the same assembly language) little brother the 6809 (1978). The Tandy Color Computer and the Dragon were notable 6809 systems.
That, of course, is just with the Mac since Apple previously used variants of the MOS 6502 (1975 and allegedly an illicit clone of the MC6800). Apple, Atari, Acorn, Commodore (the owner of MOS for several years), BBC, Oric, and Nintendo used it in multiple systems each. Apple, Acorn, and Nintendo built additional systems on its updated sibling the WDC65816 series (1983).
The the 6800/6809/Hitachi 6300/68k/Dragonball/Coldfire dynasty and the bastard MOS6502/WDC65816 families were collectively basically the ARM of their day in a way. Everyone targeting low priced or power-sipping was building platforms around them at one time or another. Acorn went from a customer to a major competitor and successor.
It should be noted that the PowerPC and the whole POWER ISA multi-platform family was largely inspired by Apple in the first place. They were talking to IBM about a new platform and invited Motorola to the talks as their long-time processor provider. They formed the "AIM Alliance" that eventually morphed into the POWER Foundation and OpenPOWER initiatives. I can't really speak to how much of POWER ISA is inspired by Motorola's own "RISC" processor, the 88000 series.
It was only a few years ago that the world was heading to an x86 monopoly.
Yes, but where can I buy a SPARC CPU? How many of those who have/can have it are running Illumos and are putting money/time in it? And more importantly what's the outlook for SPARC?
> Yes, but where can I buy a SPARC CPU?
You can buy them used or new in various kind of servers.
> How many of those who have/can have it are running Illumos and are putting money/time in it?
Dunno, I'm not really a Solaris guy. I use Solaris as a hypervisor for Linux and BSD LDOMs.
> And more importantly what's the outlook for SPARC?
Well, you could make the very same argument about Illumos. The Python developers wanted to drop support for Solaris already and OpenJDK upstream did actually drop it.
For illumos, the sweet spot is the 10-15 year old Sun gear you can pick up on eBay. Works well, supported, not overly expensive.
Newer SPARC systems are really quite good. And pretty cost-effective too. The problem is that the starting price is out of reach, and almost nobody is offering a cloud service based on SPARC, so you can't hire it either.
I'm running illumos on SPARC. I have some old hardware (desktop and server) that I like to make use of. Time, yes, but I'm not putting money into it.
And while OpenJDK upstream has dropped support for SPARC and Solaris, that was really all about problems with the Studio compiler. I' maintaining an illumos OpenJDK port with the gcc toolchain on x86 - it's not excessively hard, and realistically if you're using a common toolchain and common CPU most standards-compliant code is portable at the OS layer.
I have SPARC systems, I run NetBSD on them though not Illumos.
Intel (née Movidius) were selling SPARCs a year or two ago in the Myriad 2. SPARC is an open source CPU with solid GCC support.
Keep an eye on Tenstorrent AI cpus...
One thing I've wondered (randomly) and I could be way off the mark here, but does Illumos have any kind of place at Oxide Computer? The author of the link and the CTO of Oxide both have strong links to Illumos in one way or another but on the other hand some of their team are Linux kernel developers, or is the work they are doing not at this level in the stack?
While the primary issue is likely developer time and hardware availability to test on, there are other OSs like OpenBSD which supports much newer SPARC64 hardware: https://www.openbsd.org/sparc64.html
OpenBSD is the only OS ever to run on my Tadpole laptops without any modification necessary. Even Solaris 8 and 10 needed special software to run on them. OpenBSD works right out of the box.
SPARC was where Theo cut his teeth in the netbsd years, anecdotal but I think it’s his favourite pet so you’d imagine it’ll be well supported on his os
>The other architectures that OpenBSD supports have benefited because some kinds of bugs are exposed more often by the 64-bit big endian nature of UltraSPARC.
I can’t really tell if they’re just dropping older SPARC systems or the architecture altogther.
OpenBSD will eventually face the same issues with older systems, and I believe they already dropped platforms because hardware couldn’t be replaced.
For newer SPARC system you could “just” buy one. Oracle doesn’t need to donate them, it would be nice if they did, but the community around Illumos, Debian and OpenBSD could raise money to buy theses systems.
Why don't they just upgrade GCC to a more recent version. GCC still actively supports SPARC to this date and Rust support is also present and while not perfect, it definitely works.
So, while I don't really have a problem with removing SPARC support from Illumos which I wouldn't be using on SPARC systems anyway, the reasons mentioned in the document aren't convincing me at all.
FWIW, we still support sparc64 in Debian Ports:
Because it's not a stock gcc. It's specially modified to do things quite differently on SPARC. If it was a case of "just" upgrading we would have done it long ago.
As one of approximately 2 people who actually build illumos on SPARC, I can testify that the whole thing is enough of a maintenance burden that it's causing major problems.
(And I'll just fork a copy and use that; it's not as though the SPARC ecosystem is a moving target.)
> (And I'll just fork a copy and use that; it's not as though the SPARC ecosystem is a moving target.)
This was actually one of my first questions on seeing the announcement - is Tribblix SPARC going to continue, or will this upstream change eventually EOL that as well?
Tribblix SPARC will continue. While you lose any new features that go into illumos upstream, at least you don't keep getting broken by changes going into illumos upstream.
(This isn't a commitment for all time, naturally. At some point the SPARC hardware I have will stop working. But it turns out to be solidly built and impressively reliable.)
So for the foreseeable future you intend to just freeze SPARC Tribblix on the last Illumos to support SPARC? I suppose it should stay ABI compatible with other components ~forever, so that shouldn't even hold back other pieces of the system.
Pretty much it, yeah. If there's anything useful upstream then it will get pulled in, and there's a still a lot of worthwhile cleanup of SPARC, but the kernel will be essentially frozen.
I hope Debian manages to keep sparc64 in Debian Ports. Just last night, I was fixed an alignment portability issue for e2fsprogs which only showed up on sparc64. The "non-portable" code worked just fine on all of the officially supported Debian architectures, and the only one where one of the alignment problem showed up was sparc64[1]. (Two of the alignment problems did show up when running a 32-bit arm chroot on a 64-bit arm kernel, but one of them, a failure in the regression test j_recovery_fast_commit, only be reproduced on sparc64.)
Sparc64 support is rocky; yes, it has a modern gcc, but stack unwinding in gdb is totally broken. (Not sure if that's a gdb or a gcc problem, but just try building some trivial program where main() calls some trivial function, and then try setting a breakpoint inside that function, and then try getting a stack trace.) This made finding the root cause of the alignment bug-induced crash much harder, but at least sparc64 served as a canary in the coal mine. Supporting niche architectures is great from a software quality perspective.
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=e2fsprogs&arc...
How would upgrading GCC help with the problem that they don't have SPARC machines available for building Illumos?
It wouldn't, but they state that one of the benefits of dropping SPARC is being able to "[retire] the now-ancient GCC 4.4.4 shadow compiler that remains chiefly to support the SPARC platform"
I'm guessing the problem isn't that newer GCC lacks SPARC support, but that their (now very old and bitrotted) SPARC support relies on some kind of undefined behavior or nuance of GCC 4 that prevents newer versions from building the kernel.
While I don't follow Illumos closely, I know that there was a project to remove the dependency on the Sun Studio compiler suite, so it's possible that the reliance on the old gcc version has something to do with that.
Illumos is a BSD, so perhaps, like other BSDs, they don't want to rely on GPLv3 projects like (current) gcc.
Illumos is a fork of Solaris, itself a UNIX System V derived OS, very much not a BSD, though taking some code from BSD. I'm not sure what license they make new additions under, but the core is CDDL licensed and not BSD licensed, anyway.
(side tangent FWIW, NetBSD has no qualms with using GPLv3 GCC, only Free/Open do)
(Edit for another historical tangent: Sun helped create System V release 4, which specifically combined element of older SysV with BSD. Additionally, Solaris/"SunOS 5"'s predecessor SunOS 4 was a straight-up BSD. So Solaris is a pretty BSD-y UNIX, in a way...)
NetBSD can optionally be built with LLVM/Clang. It can be cross-compiled using either toolchain.
Well, yes -- it's nice and portable like that. I think at some point they got it building with PCC and TCC too?
My point is unlike the other BSDs they haven't made a point of deprecating/removing GCC from the source tree, or even using LLVM by default where they can. For third parties worried about GPLv3, you can easily delete all GPLv3 code with a rm -rf src/external/gpl3 :)
LLVM doesn't support all the CPU architectures that GCC does, ones missing include 68k, VAX and SH3.
LLVM recently got a m68k backend. It's still marked experimental, so distros likely aren't enabling it yet. But it's seeing active developments from hobbyists. Main author of the m68k just had a book on LLVM published.
Illumos is from the System V family tree, as it is a direct descendant of OpenSolaris.
Well, they could reach out to the Debian or Gentoo community and ask for help. We would be happy to help them.
Sound crazy. Like if Windows had dropped x86.
Yes, but Sparc was on life-support as soon as Oracle bought Sun, and dead soon after. Sparc was already hideously expensive and slow compared to x86 during the Sun days. There innovation in Sparc came to a halt soon after T1, which also dropped most of the really nice features like CPU and RAM hotswapping. So you just got something expensive, slow and incompatible for five to six times the price. Oracle then proceeded to cut research further, cut rebates, cut off customers from support trying to renegotiate higher rates. Which sent everyone running to x86 if they weren't already.
Solaris on Sparc was great until ca. 2006. After that it started dying.
This is so very far from the truth. The 2000's were a poor decade for Sun's management of SPARC. They wasted hundreds of millions on the Rock chip which is a story waiting to be written someday (Marc Tremblay, the Rock architect, was being portrayed with god-like praise by Sun executives, always citing the mountains of patents he had but as we know, patents aren't a leading indicator of technical or business success). Then they foolishly latched the SPARC program to a Stanford professor's idea of Chip Multi Threading which had some good ideas but was not performant at the very time when X64 clock rates were rocketing, due to Intel and AMD's fab processes. I'm not an Oracle apologist by any means but Oracle revived SPARC R&D and made the chip competitive again. Larry even funded a lower cost S7 SPARC chip intended for high volume cloud deployments. And as has been mentioned, Oracle also supported (again, with millions of dollars) the SPARC software-in-silicon program, which provided hardware support for encryption, bad pointer detection, and tabular memory compression/searching (DAX). They tried but it was too late for SPARC. But it should never be said that Oracle didn't pump a lot money into SPARC after the Sun aquisition.
The notes about SPARC hardware performance are not accurate; there were significant performance improvements to SPARC in progress before the Oracle acquisition and some after. Oracle made significant investments for a time after the acquisition. I don't know at what point that direction changed, but it must have been somewhere between 2014-2017.
For anyone that got to use a T3, T4+, etc. performance was obviously and substantially improved.
You're also ignoring significant innovations such as ADI.
Regardless, it doesn't matter anymore.
The SPARC innovations for hardware memory tagging, making Solaris one of the few OSes taming C in production were done after Oracle bought Sun.
Much less crazy than when Mac dropped the 68K -- those had been joined at birth and separation was believed impossible by even the best surgeons.
Solaris was portable by design all along, in the later Unix fashion. Sun actually sold their first x86-based system running SunOS all the way back in the 1980s, as a low-end complement to their new high-end SPARC machines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun386i
A fun way to make Oracle donate a machine would be to make an official POWER port.
That's a lot of work and I don't see IBM making a machine available.
There are plenty of people who would donate a virtual machine or remote work environment for this sort of thing, if anyone was (seriously) interested in porting. Realistically, I doubt anyone wants to put that kind of effort in. Getting FreeBSD and more recently OpenBSD working on PowerNV platforms has taken a very large effort by the community, and those OSes already had some support for POWER/PowerPC. Illumos only has the x86 and (very bitrotted) SPARC support AFAIK, I believe there have been some attempts at bringing up ARM but don't see anything substantial.
More on topic, as someone sentimental for SPARC hardware and to an extent solaris, this is sad to see, but it feels like just a formality. I don't think illumos has worked properly on SPARC hardware since ... Ever? There were a few illumos distributions with SPARC builds but I always had trouble getting them to run on even a T2, seems there was little work done post rebranding from OpenSolaris for SPARC. Linux and OpenBSD have been much, much better on SPARC than Illumos, tinged with bitter irony...
> A fun way to make Oracle donate a machine would be to make an official POWER port.
We tried to convince Oracle to donate a SPARC machine for Debian but that unfortunately never happened for various reasons.
Convince Oracle to donate a machine... for an Oracle Solaris competitor?! Oracle was the one that shut down OpenSolaris in the first place!
The only way they’d do it is if someone made a Solaris-killer that ran on a SPARC-killer that could run an Oracle-killer database.
But IBM wouldn’t help someone to build an AIX-killer OS.
> Without ready access to build machines, one might consider cross compilation. Though we have some support for cross-architecture software generation in the tools, the operating system does not currently support being cross compiled in full.
SPARC or not SPARC, I would love to help with that!