SEO

Hello:

Recently I was given this box.

What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
and 8 both don't work !)

Of course, I can always go to NetBSD or Open BSD.

Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.

Thanks.

Phil

Phil Phil wrote:

>Hello:
>
>Recently I was given this box.
>
>What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
>and 8 both don't work !)
>
>Of course, I can always go to NetBSD or Open BSD.
>
>Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Phil
>
>
Solaris 7 and RedHat 6.2 worked.

Pete.

In article <n9e9sv41mkaj8r7362sapm000m7t2hao7l@4ax.com>,
Phil Phil <philphil@aol.com> wrote:

> What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
> and 8 both don't work !)

Solaris 7.

--
Göran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/

On Wednesday 26 November 2003 2:38 pm in comp.sys.sun.hardware Phil Phil
wrote:

> Hello:
>
> Recently I was given this box.
>
> What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
> and 8 both don't work !)
>
> Of course, I can always go to NetBSD or Open BSD.
>
> Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.

It depends on how much memory you have.
It is possible to stuff 64Mb into this machine as 16 x 4Mb SIMMs.
Solaris 2.6 will install with 16Mb and perform reasonably with 32Mb.
Solaris 7 is not really happy with less than 64Mb.
Splack Linux works well with 16Mb or more, but you should not use
KDE or Gnome. fvwm works just fine. The more memory the better.

--
My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com
WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently
deleted. Send only plain text.

Hello,

> Recently I was given this box.
>
> What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
> and 8 both don't work !)
>
> Of course, I can always go to NetBSD or Open BSD.
>
> Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.

If you try *BSD or debian (forget Slow and RedHat), you will be
impressed by the lightweight server possibilities.

I'm using a 64 MB ram SS1+ as static webserver under debian woody.

It can be reached here: http://obsolyte.oldmachines.org:81/

I've Ext3 (journalized fs), 2.2.25 kernel, chrooted apache 1.3.X, mrtg,
SSH 2, ftp server...

Running headless without problem for 2 years.

If you want help or tips, mail me
--
@+ Yann Marigo
Dernier mini_howto: "Ajouter le support ext3 à son noyau 2.2.2x" :
http://www.geekounet.org/docs/ext3_2...ini_howto.html
Article en Free Documentation Licence biensûr ! ;-)

Phil Phil <philphil@aol.com> wrote in message news:<n9e9sv41mkaj8r7362sapm000m7t2hao7l@4ax.com>. ..
> Hello:
>
> Recently I was given this box.
>
> What is the last version of Solaris that will run it? (AFAIK Solaris 9
> and 8 both don't work !)
>
> Of course, I can always go to NetBSD or Open BSD.
>
> Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Phil

Phil,
I know others have said what will, and what will not run on it. But
you should consider if it's worth the hassle. If, as I think they may
be, the disks are 50-pin, they are hard to get. Does it have a 10baseT
connector? Unless it's packed full of ram, you might well be thinking
about adding more, which is more expense (although you might find
someone like me who did advertise some on comp.sys.sun.wanted for
nowt). Machines with small disks are always a fight.

I gather you have a SPARC 20 too from your other post. Perhaps you
should consider whether it's worth your while putting time/effort into
getting a SPARC 1 running. It is always going to appear dreadfully
slow for any interactive use (a firewall or something will be more
suitable). I'm not being funny, but with the cost of SS20's now, is it
really worth spending time on an SS1?

A few months back I took a number of IPC's, IPX's and the like from
work. My reason for doing this was because I wanted to a test the
performance of a distributed program I'd written on multiple machines.
I was keen to know if there was any point getting these slower
machines to do work when there was a faster machine available - the
slower machines could do some of it, reducing the amount of work
needed to be done by the faster machines, *IF* the speed of the
network was sufficiently fast to allow data to be passed back and
forth in less time than the faster machine could do the work. In the
end the more I looked at these older machines, the more it seemed like
a hassle to get them going and in the end I scapped them.

I'm sure others will disagree - I can take constructive critism, but
you should at least think about it.

David Kirkby

Phil Phil <philphil@aol.com> probably said:
>Recently I was given this box.
>Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.

It'll make a passable doorstop, although IPCs are better for that
because they are more compact.

It's so old it's really not worth the hassle of doing anything with,
IMO.

P.

--
pir

Peter Radcliffe wrote:

>Phil Phil <philphil@aol.com> probably said:
>
>
>>Recently I was given this box.
>>Comments, suggestions, are appreciated.
>>
>>
>
>It'll make a passable doorstop, although IPCs are better for that
>because they are more compact.
>
>It's so old it's really not worth the hassle of doing anything with,
>IMO.
>
>P.
>
>
>
Also if anyone needs some 4 meg simm's for these machines I have some.
Would like shipping costs from 95624.

Bill K7NOM