[comp.unix.questions] BSD for AT?

rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) (01/18/89)

[Note the newsgroup change.]

In article <13702@ico.ISC.COM>, rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:
> Some time back, probably more than a year ago, I heard of the beginnings of
> a project to put a BSD system on the PC/AT.  (I mean a regular 286 box.) 
> 
> If you speak for the project, please post.  Otherwise, if you have
> information about it, EMAIL to me and I'll summarize in a posting.

Well, I don't fit into either category, so I post. I was going to
post a similar question today anyway.

The Sun 386i with SunOS 4.0 is an example of an Intel architecture
running a BSD-derived system*. Unfortunately, it's somewhat proprietary
(the call of capitalism has won you, Bill joy (;). There are certain
problems running Unix on chips <= 80286, which have been detailed elsewhere.
But now that I have this nice 20MHz 386 box on my desk, I want 4.3!!!

* If DEC offers Ultrix on the Shackmate, that'd be another.

The best thing would be GNU, and recent versions of gcc have included
installation for 386 systems, but so far I think they assume that
the machine is already running some kind of ATT-style Unix. Granted,
I could go and spend the $200 (or whatever) for the official base
386 Unix TM, and then the $292,346 for the development and text tools,
but hey, I'm in research! We don't have that kind of money!!

So, Chris, what kind of nighmare is involved in porting 4.3tahoe
to a generic 80386 box? Hmmm?

And I want it SOON!

rob

chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (01/19/89)

In article <1445@leah.Albany.Edu> rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) writes:
>So, Chris, what kind of nighmare is involved in porting 4.3tahoe
>to a generic 80386 box? Hmmm?

(Why me?...)

Well, you need a compiler (gcc), an assembler (gas?), the
machine-dependent part of the kernel (boot, assembly, drivers),
and---oops---source code.

Oh well.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/19/89)

In article <1445@leah.Albany.Edu> rds95@leah.Albany.Edu (Robert Seals) writes:
>The Sun 386i with SunOS 4.0 is an example of an Intel architecture
>running a BSD-derived system*. Unfortunately, it's somewhat proprietary
>(the call of capitalism has won you, Bill joy (;). There are certain
>problems running Unix on chips <= 80286, which have been detailed elsewhere.
>But now that I have this nice 20MHz 386 box on my desk, I want 4.3!!!
>
Sun could easily come out with SunOS 4.0 for a basic 386 box, since they
did some of the development for the Sun 386i on Compacs (mostly because
they didn't have the Sun 386i yet while they were writing the software).
But they don't want to do that of course, because they want to sell the
386i.

Now, I ran a couple of tests on a 16Mhz 6386 (not exactly a fast box one
could say, no cache or anything...) with plain AT&T Unix and on the
25Mhz Sun 386i (with cache and everything). The following small table
will make it very clear that although the Sun hardware is  indeed about
twice as fast as thhe  6386, the  Unix is SLOW.

test                Sun 386i/250      AT&T 6386

LOW-LEVEL
250000 getpid()       16.8             32.5
2500000 func-calls     5.7             10.5
sieve                  3.6              6.5
100000 sines           3.1              8.6
loop 100000000         9.9             11.2

HIGH-LEVEL
pipe 5Mbytes          13.8             14.3
some shell script      2.5              2.9
8 scripts &           18.7             16.7
15 scripts &          35.4             31.3

I think I'll wait until Sun gets more out of the 386 before trying to
switch.

Paul.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------
|debra@research.att.com   | uunet!research!debra     |
------------------------------------------------------

guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (01/20/89)

>The Sun 386i with SunOS 4.0 is an example of an Intel architecture
>running a BSD-derived system*.

Another example is the Sequent Symmetry.

I've heard that somebody has ported 4.3BSD to a Toshiba 386 laptop
machine, or is doing so.

>The best thing would be GNU, and recent versions of gcc have included
>installation for 386 systems, but so far I think they assume that
>the machine is already running some kind of ATT-style Unix.

They assume it has some environment in which you can run the GNU
software, which need not be UNIX (I think "gcc" and GNU EMACS run under
VMS, for example).  They don't have a kernel at present, and I don't
know how much of a library they have, so it's not a complete OS.