<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>FreeBSD is ok, NetBSD prob ok, not tested as much. OpenBSD not good.<br><br> - Jay<br><br>> To: jay.krell@cornell.edu<br>> CC: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] OS for CM3 <br>> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 17:08:49 -0700<br>> From: mika@async.async.caltech.edu<br>> <br>> Well I know all about the various OS tradeoffs, I was asking more<br>> about Modula-3 itself.<br>> <br>> I want to use kernel threads, so I can share large data structures <br>> across CPUs. This is for production work, not a development platform.<br>> My main development platform will probably stay FreeBSD/i386 for a while.<br>> <br>> Yes I agree Linux is chaotic. But I can't stand Windows, because I<br>> hate GUIs (because I can't automate them and my philosophy is to make<br>> the computer work for me, not the other way around). I know all the<br>> old-fashioned Unix admin commands by heart (I am somewhat dismayed<br>> that the old kill -1 convention for making daemons re-read their config<br>> files seems to have fallen by the wayside!) My .twmrc is dated 1992.<br>> And PageUp etc work fine in emacs for me :-)<br>> <br>> In other words the system will just have command-line access. In<br>> fact it's supposed to sit in a locked machine room.<br>> <br>> Err, to the point... maybe it got lost in the vague generality of the<br>> question. <br>> <br>> My real question is: do kernel threads work on *BSD at all?<br>> <br>> I haven't done a proper back to back test but the Debian system<br>> "seems faster" than FreeBSD, running on the same amd64 hardware.<br>> <br>> Or perhaps.. crazy question.. can one make a hackintosh/amd64 out of a<br>> 16-core machine?<br>> <br>> I seem to remember Tony made some (bad) comments about FreeBSD kernel<br>> threads a few months ago...<br>> <br>> Mika<br>> <br>> Jay K writes:<br>> ><br>> >ps: Slackware was fine back when I used it. RedHat is ok=2C but it at least=<br>> > used to take forever to do any package management compared to Ubuntu/Debia=<br>> >n.<br>> >Suse has/had RedHat's problem=2C also being rpm basedi but also seemed to l=<br>> >ead in gui/managability.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >Anyway=2C other than Mac and NT=2C all my other systems are now ssh command=<br>> > line and impossible to do much with. :)<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >ps: I also like *BSD due to the reduced number of choices=2C and the "integ=<br>> >rated build"=2C where you can build a bit<br>> >more in one nice go=2C not just the kernel. Linux is so darn chaotic.<br>> >But I rarely take any advantage of this.<br>> >I would really like=2C whatever I run=2C to build the entire thing from sou=<br>> >rce=2C and do it fairly easily.<br>> >=A0Have the whole thing be debuggable.<br>> >=A0Cross building support would be nice too=2C though lately people seem to=<br>> > give up and use qemu.<br>> >=A0 Too much building stuff wants to run as it builds=2C like using autocon=<br>> >f.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >=A0- Jay<br>> ><br>> >----------------------------------------<br>> >> From: jay.krell@cornell.edu<br>> >> To: dragisha@m3w.org=3B mika@async.async.caltech.edu<br>> >> CC: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> >> Subject: RE: [M3devel] OS for CM3<br>> >> Date: Sat=2C 22 May 2010 23:35:52 +0000<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Modula-3 will run on almost anything. Install something we don't work on =<br>> >yet and give me ssh access. :)<br>> >> Like get a Loongson laptop -- comes with Linux/MIPS but can also run Open=<br>> >BSD and maybe others.<br>> >> Or=2C install something we don't have yet in Hudson yet=2C e.g. NetBSD/am=<br>> >d64=2C and have Olaf add jobs for it.<br>> >><br>> >> Seriously=2C for Hudson purposes=2C NetBSD/amd64 is probably the best=2C =<br>> >followed by NetBSD/x86.<br>> >> I'll set these up eventually.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Regarding Linux=2C I've been using Debian=2C because it has about the bes=<br>> >t support for multiple architectures.<br>> >> And then the same "experience" across all of them -- same installer and=<br>> > package management.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Gentoo would be the next or previous choice -- not clear what the ppc64 s=<br>> >upport is in Debian.<br>> >> It helps that I first used wimpy Ubuntu before moving up to the supposedl=<br>> >y manly Debian.<br>> >> Gentoo I've had trouble getting to install+boot.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> OpenBSD has about the best install experience imho and a certain hard to =<br>> >capture purity about it.<br>> >> Examples:<br>> >> NetBSD and FreeBSD support powerpc.<br>> >> FreeBSD's partitioner doesn't run on powerpc though.<br>> >> NetBSD I couldn't get to install.<br>> >> OpenBSD was easy.<br>> >><br>> >> Attempting to install Linux or NetBSD on an SGI machine apparently k=<br>> >illed the machine.<br>> >> I couldn't get either to install or boot. One of them might not have=<br>> > local console working.<br>> >> But again OpenBSD was easy and worked.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> My OpenBSD/sgimips CD was actually bad. But it worked enough to boot=<br>> >=2C and the<br>> >> the install was then easy to fallback to over the network.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> But they don't have kernel threads=2C so=2C while we work=2C we probably =<br>> >scale the worst here.<br>> >> Besides=2C user threads are an /option/ on all Posix systems=2C only /r=<br>> >equired/ on OpenBSD.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> I think all the user interfaces are terrible though.<br>> >> I am most productive by far on NT=2C using find-in-files countless times =<br>> >daily in Visual C++ 5.0.<br>> >> It is so much better than command line grep=2C and it beats every other =<br>> >IDE/editor I have tried=2C<br>> >> and I have tried many. Komodo Edit is so-so. MonoDevelop was promising=<br>> >=2C but it refused<br>> >> to open *.m3 files as plain text. TextWrangler on Mac is so-so=2C what I=<br>> > use for lack<br>> >> of anything good. Eclipse is confusing to install and I don't think work=<br>> >ed well=2C but I forget.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Mac is distant second in productivity.<br>> >> At least I don't have to constantly flip the newlines and it has a fast=<br>> > fork.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Everything else I can't even edit files on. I can't copy/paste=2C navigat=<br>> >e quickly (e.g. esp. using<br>> >> page up/down/home/end/mouse!). NT also has a fast console with half decen=<br>> >t most support.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> My most productive pattern is editing on NT and copying files around othe=<br>> >rwise.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> As well=2C consider that the NT Modula-3 backend is unique and pretty dar=<br>> >n good.<br>> >> It is fast=2C in-proc=2C and always optimizes a certain amount.<br>> >> In its only mode=2C it generates significantly better code than unoptim=<br>> >izing gcc.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Compiling N files on NT takes one process to compile=2C codegen=2C write=<br>> > objs files=2C<br>> >> and then another one or two to link.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Compiling N files on the other systems takes one process to compile=2C N =<br>> >runs<br>> >> of m3cg to generate N asssembly files=2C N runs to run the assembler.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> If you really need an *occasional* Posixy experience on NT=2C there is Cy=<br>> >gwin and SFU/SUA.<br>> >> Cygwin has a very slow fork and it is very noticable.<br>> >> SFU/SUA has a "normally" fast fork=2C and it is very noticable.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> FreeBSD=2C Solaris=2C NetBSD=2C Linux -- should all be about the same.<br>> >> (ok=2C Solaris/x86 support is only in head=2C not release).<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Then there are the non-x86 ones=2C like HP-UX=2C OSF/1=2C Irix=2C AIX=2C =<br>> >VMS... :)<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Also=2C for Hudson purposes=2C we need Java.<br>> >> That actually rules out a lot -- basically any *BSD that isn't x86/amd64.<br>> >> Linux now has good enough Java on all architectures.<br>> >> There was a project to eliminate all the assembly code. And we have no =<br>> >problem<br>> >> e.g. now on Linux/sparc and Linux/powerpc.<br>> >><br>> >> All the commercial systems probably suffice also.<br>> >><br>> >> - Jay<br>> >><br>> >> ----------------------------------------<br>> >>> From: dragisha@m3w.org<br>> >>> To: mika@async.async.caltech.edu<br>> >>> Date: Sun=2C 23 May 2010 00:32:25 +0200<br>> >>> CC: m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> >>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] OS for CM3<br>> >>><br>> >>> There is no simple nor unique answer to this. I prefer Fedora=2C and I'v=<br>> >e<br>> >>> been using RedHat since 1996... Some people prefer RHEL=2C or CentOS if<br>> >>> they like it freer. Jumped of SLS then Slackware I've been using from<br>> >>> 1993-1995=2C and never looked back.<br>> >>><br>> >>> Easy to administer and maintain=2C most of modern distros have GUI for<br>> >>> every admin task.<br>> >>><br>> >>> On Sat=2C 2010-05-22 at 14:53 -0700=2C Mika Nystrom wrote:<br>> >>>> Hi Modula-3ers=2C<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> Can anyone give me some advice on what OS to install on a new PC comput=<br>> >e<br>> >>>> server with 16 to 24 cores and 16 to 32 GB of RAM? The code I'm going<br>> >>>> to be running is all written in Modula-3 with some C and Fortran thrown<br>> >>>> in and I want to use CM3. The odd extra thing in Java and some analysis<br>> >>>> in R. Currently I'm stuck with PM3 on FreeBSD/i386.<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> I've always liked the ease of administration (i.e.=2C I'm an old dog an=<br>> >d I<br>> >>>> don't have to learn anything new) of FreeBSD=2C but the threading suppo=<br>> >rt<br>> >>>> seems much better with Linux? I do really want to run multi-threaded<br>> >>>> programs across several CPUs.<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> I am considering Debian/amd64. Any other recommendations=2C experiences=<br>> >?<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> Mika<br>> >>><br>> >>> --<br>> >>> Dragi=B9a Duri=E6<br>> >>><br>> >><br>> > =<br> </body>
</html>