[M3devel] OS for CM3

[Jay K]

FreeBSD is ok, NetBSD prob ok, not tested as much. OpenBSD not good.

 - Jay

> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] OS for CM3 
> Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 17:08:49 -0700
> From: mika at async.async.caltech.edu
> 
> Well I know all about the various OS tradeoffs, I was asking more
> about Modula-3 itself.
> 
> I want to use kernel threads, so I can share large data structures 
> across CPUs.  This is for production work, not a development platform.
> My main development platform will probably stay FreeBSD/i386 for a while.
> 
> Yes I agree Linux is chaotic.  But I can't stand Windows, because I
> hate GUIs (because I can't automate them and my philosophy is to make
> the computer work for me, not the other way around).  I know all the
> old-fashioned Unix admin commands by heart (I am somewhat dismayed
> that the old kill -1 convention for making daemons re-read their config
> files seems to have fallen by the wayside!)  My .twmrc is dated 1992.
> And PageUp etc work fine in emacs for me :-)
> 
> In other words the system will just have command-line access.  In
> fact it's supposed to sit in a locked machine room.
> 
> Err, to the point... maybe it got lost in the vague generality of the
> question.  
> 
> My real question is: do kernel threads work on *BSD at all?
> 
> I haven't done a proper back to back test but the Debian system
> "seems faster" than FreeBSD, running on the same amd64 hardware.
> 
> Or perhaps.. crazy question.. can one make a hackintosh/amd64 out of a
> 16-core machine?
> 
> I seem to remember Tony made some (bad) comments about FreeBSD kernel
> threads a few months ago...
> 
>     Mika
> 
> Jay K writes:
> >
> >ps: Slackware was fine back when I used it. RedHat is ok=2C but it at least=
> > used to take forever to do any package management compared to Ubuntu/Debia=
> >n.
> >Suse has/had RedHat's problem=2C also being rpm basedi but also seemed to l=
> >ead in gui/managability.
> >
> >
> >Anyway=2C other than Mac and NT=2C all my other systems are now ssh command=
> > line and impossible to do much with. :)
> >
> >
> >ps: I also like *BSD due to the reduced number of choices=2C and the "integ=
> >rated build"=2C where you can build a bit
> >more in one nice go=2C not just the kernel. Linux is so darn chaotic.
> >But I rarely take any advantage of this.
> >I would really like=2C whatever I run=2C to build the entire thing from sou=
> >rce=2C and do it fairly easily.
> >=A0Have the whole thing be debuggable.
> >=A0Cross building support would be nice too=2C though lately people seem to=
> > give up and use qemu.
> >=A0 Too much building stuff wants to run as it builds=2C like using autocon=
> >f.
> >
> >
> >=A0- Jay
> >
> >----------------------------------------
> >> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> >> To: dragisha at m3w.org=3B mika at async.async.caltech.edu
> >> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> >> Subject: RE: [M3devel] OS for CM3
> >> Date: Sat=2C 22 May 2010 23:35:52 +0000
> >>
> >>
> >> Modula-3 will run on almost anything. Install something we don't work on =
> >yet and give me ssh access. :)
> >> Like get a Loongson laptop -- comes with Linux/MIPS but can also run Open=
> >BSD and maybe others.
> >> Or=2C install something we don't have yet in Hudson yet=2C e.g. NetBSD/am=
> >d64=2C and have Olaf add jobs for it.
> >>
> >> Seriously=2C for Hudson purposes=2C NetBSD/amd64 is probably the best=2C =
> >followed by NetBSD/x86.
> >> I'll set these up eventually.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regarding Linux=2C I've been using Debian=2C because it has about the bes=
> >t support for multiple architectures.
> >>   And then the same "experience" across all of them -- same installer and=
> > package management.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gentoo would be the next or previous choice -- not clear what the ppc64 s=
> >upport is in Debian.
> >> It helps that I first used wimpy Ubuntu before moving up to the supposedl=
> >y manly Debian.
> >> Gentoo I've had trouble getting to install+boot.
> >>
> >>
> >> OpenBSD has about the best install experience imho and a certain hard to =
> >capture purity about it.
> >>   Examples:
> >>      NetBSD and FreeBSD support powerpc.
> >>      FreeBSD's partitioner doesn't run on powerpc though.
> >>      NetBSD I couldn't get to install.
> >>      OpenBSD was easy.
> >>
> >>      Attempting to install Linux or NetBSD on an SGI machine apparently k=
> >illed the machine.
> >>      I couldn't get either to install or boot. One of them might not have=
> > local console working.
> >>      But again OpenBSD was easy and worked.
> >>
> >>
> >>     My OpenBSD/sgimips CD was actually bad. But it worked enough to boot=
> >=2C and the
> >>     the install was then easy to fallback to over the network.
> >>
> >>
> >> But they don't have kernel threads=2C so=2C while we work=2C we probably =
> >scale the worst here.
> >>   Besides=2C user threads are an /option/ on all Posix systems=2C only /r=
> >equired/ on OpenBSD.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think all the user interfaces are terrible though.
> >> I am most productive by far on NT=2C using find-in-files countless times =
> >daily in Visual C++ 5.0.
> >>  It is so much better than command line grep=2C and it beats every other =
> >IDE/editor I have tried=2C
> >>  and I have tried many. Komodo Edit is so-so. MonoDevelop was promising=
> >=2C but it refused
> >>  to open *.m3 files as plain text. TextWrangler on Mac is so-so=2C what I=
> > use for lack
> >>  of anything good. Eclipse is confusing to install and I don't think work=
> >ed well=2C but I forget.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mac is distant second in productivity.
> >>   At least I don't have to constantly flip the newlines and it has a fast=
> > fork.
> >>
> >>
> >> Everything else I can't even edit files on. I can't copy/paste=2C navigat=
> >e quickly (e.g. esp. using
> >> page up/down/home/end/mouse!). NT also has a fast console with half decen=
> >t most support.
> >>
> >>
> >> My most productive pattern is editing on NT and copying files around othe=
> >rwise.
> >>
> >>
> >> As well=2C consider that the NT Modula-3 backend is unique and pretty dar=
> >n good.
> >>   It is fast=2C in-proc=2C and always optimizes a certain amount.
> >>   In its only mode=2C it generates significantly better code than unoptim=
> >izing gcc.
> >>
> >>
> >>  Compiling N files on NT takes one process to compile=2C codegen=2C write=
> > objs files=2C
> >> and then another one or two to link.
> >>
> >>
> >> Compiling N files on the other systems takes one process to compile=2C N =
> >runs
> >> of m3cg to generate N asssembly files=2C N runs to run the assembler.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you really need an *occasional* Posixy experience on NT=2C there is Cy=
> >gwin and SFU/SUA.
> >> Cygwin has a very slow fork and it is very noticable.
> >> SFU/SUA has a "normally" fast fork=2C and it is very noticable.
> >>
> >>
> >> FreeBSD=2C Solaris=2C NetBSD=2C Linux -- should all be about the same.
> >>  (ok=2C Solaris/x86 support is only in head=2C not release).
> >>
> >>
> >> Then there are the non-x86 ones=2C like HP-UX=2C OSF/1=2C Irix=2C AIX=2C =
> >VMS... :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Also=2C for Hudson purposes=2C we need Java.
> >> That actually rules out a lot -- basically any *BSD that isn't x86/amd64.
> >> Linux now has good enough Java on all architectures.
> >>   There was a project to eliminate all the assembly code. And we have no =
> >problem
> >>     e.g. now on Linux/sparc and Linux/powerpc.
> >>
> >> All the commercial systems probably suffice also.
> >>
> >>  - Jay
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------
> >>> From: dragisha at m3w.org
> >>> To: mika at async.async.caltech.edu
> >>> Date: Sun=2C 23 May 2010 00:32:25 +0200
> >>> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] OS for CM3
> >>>
> >>> There is no simple nor unique answer to this. I prefer Fedora=2C and I'v=
> >e
> >>> been using RedHat since 1996... Some people prefer RHEL=2C or CentOS if
> >>> they like it freer. Jumped of SLS then Slackware I've been using from
> >>> 1993-1995=2C and never looked back.
> >>>
> >>> Easy to administer and maintain=2C most of modern distros have GUI for
> >>> every admin task.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat=2C 2010-05-22 at 14:53 -0700=2C Mika Nystrom wrote:
> >>>> Hi Modula-3ers=2C
> >>>>
> >>>> Can anyone give me some advice on what OS to install on a new PC comput=
> >e
> >>>> server with 16 to 24 cores and 16 to 32 GB of RAM? The code I'm going
> >>>> to be running is all written in Modula-3 with some C and Fortran thrown
> >>>> in and I want to use CM3. The odd extra thing in Java and some analysis
> >>>> in R. Currently I'm stuck with PM3 on FreeBSD/i386.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've always liked the ease of administration (i.e.=2C I'm an old dog an=
> >d I
> >>>> don't have to learn anything new) of FreeBSD=2C but the threading suppo=
> >rt
> >>>> seems much better with Linux? I do really want to run multi-threaded
> >>>> programs across several CPUs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am considering Debian/amd64. Any other recommendations=2C experiences=
> >?
> >>>>
> >>>> Mika
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dragi=B9a Duri=E6
> >>>
> >>
> > 		 	   		  =
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20100523/c9ebf99a/attachment-0002.html>