Juhan Leemet wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:14:44 +0000, David Kirkby wrote:
>>The HyperSPARCs are pretty useless CPUs really. I have a couple of pairs
>> of 125 MHz ones, and I rekon a pair of 125's is about the same speed
>>as a pair of 75 MHz SuperSPARCs. In fact, if anything, the latter are
>>faster. Remember UltraSPARCs are better than SuperSPARCs and run at much
>>higher clock rates. HyperSPARCs seem a dead loss to me.
>
>
> IMO the "sweet
> spot" for Sparc-20s is dual SM71s (75 MHz SuperSPARC 1MB cache).
That's nice to know. Here's my main webserver:- just what you ordered!!
webserver2 # psrinfo -v
Status of processor 0 as of: 11/02/2004 22:06:27
Processor has been on-line since 10/16/2004 20:27:07.
The sparc processor operates at 75 MHz,
and has a sparc floating point processor.
Status of processor 2 as of: 11/02/2004 22:06:27
Processor has been on-line since 10/16/2004 20:27:11.
The sparc processor operates at 75 MHz,
and has a sparc floating point processor.
I have another with idential CPUs.
> I also agree high speed
> Ross CPUs are defintely not worth it viz. performance/price. The only
> rationale might be if you absolutely HAVE to have some for your museum.
I really don't see the logic. What people pay for high end HyperSPARCs
is silly really.
>>To be honest, as someone who likes SS20's (I have 5), their day is past.
>>A low end Ultra 5/10 or 30 will knock the spots off an SS20. I would not
>>consider upgrading an SS20, other than to put a larger disk in it.
>
>
> Wow! That's more than me. I fire them up now and then, for nostalgia.
I have one an SS20 web server, with quite a few domains on it.
http://www.g8wrb.org/ http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/ http://www.althorne.org/ http://www.keeblebrothers.co.uk/ http://www.drkirkby.co.uk/
(plus several more I can't be bothered to list).
I keep another with identical information on it, so if the SS20 was to
fail, I can switch over to the backup in seconds. The other 3 SS20's are
not used much, but I used to use them for testing software on various
operating systems.
> Might replace some 83MHz Pentium Overdrive machines with them. I think
> they can still work as email servers, news servers, file servers, etc.
Yes sure. Even as low end web servers. I only have an ADSL link (64-256
kbit/s on upload), so performance of those sites above will pretty much
always be limited by network bandwidth, not CPU time.
> However, I tend to wring the last drop out of my gear. YMMV
They are fine for what I use them for. I was not trying to imply they
are not fine machines, but I think they are past the point of worth
upgrading. I guess CPUs for $10 might make sense, but I would not spend
that to change from 75 to 85 MHz. Especially by the time you add carriage.
BTW, there are some SuperSPARC CPUs with 2MB cache, which will work in
an SS20, but only 1MB gets used.
>>I don't know if 200's are available as single width boards. In fact, I'm
>>not 100% sure if its actually possible to fit 4x200 MHz in an SS20. I
>>know you can fit 4x150's, but I'm not sure about any higher.
>
>
> Yikes! Quad 200s would certainly be a fire-breathing monster! viz. heat,
> not necessarily performance.
I have noticed the kernel time is quite high with hypersparcs. Cache
consistency is always a problem with multi-processor machines, but
multi-processor HyperSPARCs (I have before run 4x125) waste a lot of time.
One thing to watch with the HyperSPARCs is the nylon nuts and bolts used
to hold the heatsinks on (at least on my 125 MHz units, can become very
brittle if they get too hot.
I did some careful checking with a meter, and decided I could replace
all the bolts with metal ones, as long as a nylon washer was under one,
as a track on the PCB was too close. They work fine with metal.
> Last I saw even eBay prices for those CPUs
> were prohibitive ($1000s?!? not worth it). There have been some 180MHz
> Ross with 1MB cache (I believe?) which would be interesting to try, but
> probably too expensive for idle curiosity.
There must be some mugs out there paying $1000. I suspect the bigger
caches would push the percentage of kernel time up even more, which
seems to be a problem with HyperSPARCs to me.
>>I bought an Ultra 60 with a single 360MHz CPU and 128MB ram for just
>>over 100 UK pounds a few weeks ago off eBay. Why waste money upgraiding
>>an SS20 when you can get a U60 for that money? U30's are even cheaper.
>>U5's and 10's seem to go for a bit more, but do have the advantage of
>>requiring cheaper IDE disks.
>
>
> Good price!
A guy on eBay had a lot of them. Some had 256MB. In fact, some lucky
person got his with 256MB for a bit less than I paid for mine with 128.
I bought one as a backup for the U80 - CPUs and disk would swap between
the two. And 64MB ram modules from SS20's fit the U60 too, so owning
SS20s and a U80, made the U60 a great spare machine.
> I happen to like Ultra2s. Can't quite afford any U80s.
I've never had a U2 - Had IPC, IPX, SS4, SS5, SS20, U30, U60 and U80's,
but never a U1, U2, U5 or U10.
I do have a U80 (4x450, 4GB RAM). U80's seem to hold their price
*reasonably* well, although I hate to think what I have lost on mine
since I bought it !!!
U30's seem to be pretty cheap.
> Viz. IDE disks: dunno, my PC workstation gets "constipated" now and then
> doing IDE I/O (even ATA100), then don't seem to do multiple I/Os very well.
SCSI clearly is better, but it is expensive. I've seen *used* 36 GB
disks go on eBay for little more than the price of a *new* 200 GB IDE
one. That is one hell of a difference in price.
I have all SCSI here - SS20's, the U60, the U80, IBM RS/6000, SCI
Octane, HP C3000. The DEC Alpha has a SCSI disk, but I did borrow a 120
GB IDE one and found it worked okay. The CD-ROM is IDE on the Dec Alpha.
But its a long time since I switched that on.
But I must admit, if I bought a new PC now for home use, I would not pay
the extra for SCSI. I'd go for IDE, just because of the price.
There is another advantage with SCSI too - reliability. I have a
relative who seems to spend all his time downloading CD+DVDs, and
converting to MP3 or whatever. This is highly disk intensive. He was
always replacing disks. Although the manufacturers would replace them,
he was getting rather fed up every 3-6 months or so having to replace
disks. I suggested he used SCSI, which solved it for him. I just don't
think IDE disks are made as well as SCSI ones, so can't take months of
continuous activity, whereas SCSI disks, which are often used in
servers, can take it a lot better.