Market research for new PowerPC system
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    CountRaven
    Posts: 557 from 2007/12/11
    From: Greece
    Mail sent. Support MorphOS. We need new Hardware.
  • »27.09.09 - 13:02
    Profile Visit Website
  • Just looking around
    Posts: 15 from 2004/2/7
    From: Slovakia
    Mail sent. We wish new PPC based Hardware.

    with Regards
    MB :Pegasos-II
    CPU :G4/1GHz
    OS :MorphOS 2.2 reg, MorphOS 1.4.5, Ubuntu Linux 8.04, MACOSX Panther on MOLk
    RAM :512MB-DDR266 Apacer
    GFX :ATI-Radeon 9200 128MB
    HDD :MAXTOR-160+80GB ATA133
    TV :Pinnacle Studio PCTV
  • »27.09.09 - 14:44
    Profile Visit Website
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    ironfist
    Posts: 254 from 2004/4/22
    From: Pegasos.org
    jcmarcos:
    Yes, the CrabFire was essentially a Pegasos 2 G4 in a
    custom-built 2U-case and a stripped down Linux OS.

    CrabOS, however, was an operating system made by
    ex. Gentoo developer David Holm. The target platform
    was of course the CrabFire.

    Too bad we didn't get the CrabFire to market. We all had
    our day-jobs aside and the project pretty much died.

    Today, however, I work in my own company with ZyXEL
    firewalls. Their latest firewall-line (USG) are mostly running
    PowerQUICC CPU's. Only the highest end USG 1000-2000
    are running dual-core x86 CPUs.
  • »27.09.09 - 19:54
    Profile Visit Website
  • Caterpillar
    Caterpillar
    eastone
    Posts: 22 from 2007/8/4
    From: Vaasa/Finland
    Mail is sent.
  • »28.09.09 - 11:18
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1058 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    Any update on the figures, how many people are interested in that project?
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »28.09.09 - 13:27
    Profile Visit Website
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    feanor
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20
    Quote:


    pampers wrote:
    Any update on the figures, how many people are interested in that project?


    I was just about to paste this:

    http://www.codex.gr/index.php?pageID=&blogItem=62
  • »28.09.09 - 14:12
    Profile Visit Website
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1058 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    Feanor: is there any limit you have to reach to consider making your project alive?
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »28.09.09 - 16:55
    Profile Visit Website
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    feanor
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20
    I'd like 500 mails yes. I could even consider it at 300 (a typical production run is 500 units), ~60 is too few, but I didn't expect to satisfy the limit in 3 days obviously. I'm a patient man -until the end of October at least. :)
  • »28.09.09 - 16:57
    Profile Visit Website
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1058 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    Did you try to announce that out of Amiga, Morphos and Haiku related forums? Meaby that would be a good chance to get some brand new users to our market :)
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »28.09.09 - 17:36
    Profile Visit Website
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    feanor
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20
    I asked also on linuxppc-dev, and debian-powerpc -though I admit I never found a reply from the debian list. I'll probably try again. I also intend to post on several more linux/ppc lists (gentoo, arch, ubuntu, opensuse).
  • »28.09.09 - 17:44
    Profile Visit Website
  • MorphOS Developer
    Krashan
    Posts: 1107 from 2003/6/11
    From: Białystok...
    @feanor

    Don't be affraid of multiple cores. MorphOS can use them in relatively easy to implement way. Not SMP, of course, but "dual/quadcore makes no sense for MorphOS" is a myth.
  • »28.09.09 - 19:13
    Profile Visit Website
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Ruud
    Posts: 335 from 2009/2/2
    From: Hampshire, UK
    @Krashan

    This is interesting...in what way and to what extent could Morphos make use of extra cores without SMP?
    "We live, we die, we laugh, we cry"
  • »28.09.09 - 19:57
    Profile
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    feanor
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20
    Quote:


    Krashan wrote:
    @feanor

    Don't be affraid of multiple cores. MorphOS can use them in relatively easy to implement way. Not SMP, of course, but "dual/quadcore makes no sense for MorphOS" is a myth.


    I'm not afraid of multicores, in fact if P1022 was out now, I would go for this one no question about that, specs are right, the price is right and it's low-power. But samples start Q1/2010, it's a long wait and perhaps people will get bored waiting. We'll see.
  • »30.09.09 - 08:16
    Profile Visit Website
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1214 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    @ Ruud

    Quote:

    This is interesting...in what way and to what extent could Morphos make use of extra cores without SMP?


    In the same general way as MorphOS is able to offload certain tasks from the CPU to a graphics processor, for instance.

    There are reasons why seemingly every major OS supports SMP, however ;-)
  • »30.09.09 - 09:09
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    Krashan
    Posts: 1107 from 2003/6/11
    From: Białystok...
    Quote:

    Ruud wrote:

    This is interesting...in what way and to what extent could Morphos make use of extra cores without SMP?


    The same way as PowerUp used two different processors. I see it as a library allowing for launching processes, or even an extension to dos.library. IPC may be integrated in exec. In fact supporting multiple cores of one processor is easier than PowerUp because of following reasons:

    1. Cores are identical, so you need not to use different compiler. You may write the same code which runs on both single core and multicore systems.

    2. Cache coherency between cores is ensured by hardware.

    Disadvantages are:

    1. Only new applications using the extension may take advantage of multiple cores (on the other hand it does not break compatibility). Old apps will run on "main" core only.

    2. Programmer should desing an application multithreaded way (but this is also needed for systems with SMP as far as I know).
  • »30.09.09 - 15:33
    Profile Visit Website
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1214 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    @ Krashan

    Quote:

    2. Programmer should desing an application multithreaded way (but this is also needed for systems with SMP as far as I know).


    Yes, if a single application is supposed to utilize, say, four cores when running on an SMP-capable OS, then you need to design it to be multithreaded.

    That being said, you can run four single-threaded applications on a quad-core machine and your typical SMP-capable OS will manage to utilize all four cores (one per app, for instance) rather than run the applications on the main core only.
  • »30.09.09 - 16:15
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    jcmarcos
    Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13
    From: Pinto, Madrid ...
    Quote:

    Krashan wrote:
    Quote:

    Ruud wrote:

    in what way and to what extent could Morphos make use of extra cores without SMP?


    The same way as PowerUp used two different processors.


    Exactly the same thing I thought of years ago. In fact, the PowerUP framework was more difficult than this scenario.

    Quote:

    I see it as a library allowing for launching processes, or even an extension to dos.library.


    The "dos.library" is the one that starts processes?

    Quote:

    IPC may be integrated in exec


    Of course, some extensions would be needed in the kernel. By the way, is anyone surprised that we are talking about SMP, and there's NO mention of Quark? MorphOS IS the A-Box, there's still a SMP capable kernel beneath, and funnily, its SMP abilities wouldn't be used.

    Quote:

    Cores are identical, so you need not to use different compiler.


    Yes, one minor (ahem) detail, that emphzsizes just how amazing was the PowerUP system. A computer inside a computer, an operating system inside an operating system.

    Quote:

    Cache coherency between cores is ensured by hardware.


    There's been a lot of talk about this since a long ago...

    Quote:

    Only new applications using the extension may take advantage of multiple cores. Programmer should desing an application multithreaded way


    Of course, these are not disadvantages of this implementation, only the obvious, natural compromises, of SMP computing. For example, sometimes, doing something on several cores is actually slower than ina single one. That can't be counted as a disadvantage of the implementation, it's just life.
  • »30.09.09 - 16:22
    Profile
  • Acolyte of the Butterfly
    Acolyte of the Butterfly
    feanor
    Posts: 104 from 2009/3/20
    Quote:


    jcmarcos wrote:
    ...That can't be counted as a disadvantage of the implementation, it's just life.


    Actually, life doesn't really bother with such details, it's just computers that deal with such stuff :)
  • »30.09.09 - 16:30
    Profile Visit Website
  • Cocoon
    Cocoon
    fairlanefastback
    Posts: 54 from 2007/2/6
    I sent my email yesterday. :-D
  • »30.09.09 - 16:34
    Profile
  • Butterfly
    Butterfly
    Georg
    Posts: 62 from 2004/4/7
    @Krashan

    I would do multiple core support by simply allowing (through some new Exec functions) tasks to enter and leave a special state where they are multi-core-safe. While in this state the scheduler is allowed to run them on other cores. See here.
  • »30.09.09 - 16:45
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    Krashan
    Posts: 1107 from 2003/6/11
    From: Białystok...
    Quote:

    ASiegel wrote:

    That being said, you can run four single-threaded applications on a quad-core machine and an SMP-capable OS will automatically manage to utilize all four cores rather than run the applications on the main core only.


    As it has been said many times, full SMP in MorphOS would be very hard to implement if possible at all. What I'm talking about is some kind of asymetrical multiprocessing (AMP), where one of cores is considered the main one, and the rest serve as a kind of "coprocessors". The kernel initializes all cores and starts a supervisor thread on every secondary core. This thread waits for messages from the kernel in idle state. When some application wants to launch a MProcess (short from "multicore capable process"), the kernel assigns one of secondary cores (it may be the main one as well if there is only one, or load balancer detects that the main core is the least loaded one). Then MProcess is added to the task scheduler of a core supervisor.
  • »30.09.09 - 16:46
    Profile Visit Website
  • MorphOS Developer
    Krashan
    Posts: 1107 from 2003/6/11
    From: Białystok...
    Quote:

    jcmarcos wrote:

    The "dos.library" is the one that starts processes?


    Yes, the usual way to start a process is to call CreateNewProcTags() from dos.library. As it is a tag based function, it may be easily extended. In fact the difference between a regular process and "MProcess" would be that the system is allowed to run MProcesses on secondary cores. This is needed for compatibility, as many of existing multithreaded applications rely on the fact (and use it for IPC) that any two of their threads cannot be executed at the same time. Applications creating MProcesses have to do their threads synchronization and communication with simultaneous execution in mind.

    Quote:

    Of course, some extensions would be needed in the kernel.


    Fortunately exec.library relies on a minimal set of multitasking primitives, these are basically just signals and semaphores. All the rest rely on them (like messages and message ports). Then these extensions will be implementation ones, not API ones.
  • »30.09.09 - 16:57
    Profile Visit Website
  • MorphOS Developer
    Krashan
    Posts: 1107 from 2003/6/11
    From: Białystok...
    Quote:

    Georg wrote:

    I would do multiple core support by simply allowing (through some new Exec functions) tasks to enter and leave a special state where they are multi-core-safe. While in this state the scheduler is allowed to run them on other cores.


    I do not like the idea personally, as it assumes the kernel will have to move a process from a core to another one. This will be performance costly and can potentially create many compatibility problems. My idea is that a proces once launched on core N will stay there until termination. About calling libraries from MProcesses - those libraries with shareable bases should be safe. Libraries with non-shareable bases (bsdsocket.library for example) will be not allowed to be called from MProcesses in the first stage of multicore transition. Then multicore-safe versions of them will be created. It is a problem of course, but not very big one. The first candidates for MProcesses will be tasks of number crunching and multimedia processing. Such tasks do not need any I/O libraries, just data are passed via memory blocks and basic IPC is needed for synchronization.

    [ Edited by Krashan on 2009/9/30 17:15 ]
  • »30.09.09 - 17:12
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    ausPPC
    Posts: 543 from 2007/8/6
    From: Pending...
    Using additional cores as coprocessors should be a good fit for the Amiga hardware & software model.
    PPC assembly ain't so bad... ;)
  • »30.09.09 - 23:18
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Jambalah
    Posts: 807 from 2008/3/30
    From: Roma, Italy
    Mail sent with a big thanks. Anyway it will go...
    Pegasos II 1 ghz
    Powermac G4 Quicksilver with Sonnet Encore 1.8 ghz
    Powermac G4 MDD single 1.25 ghz, silenced for ears health...
    Powermac G5 dual 2.7 ghz I'll be back...
    Powermac G5 dual 2.0 ghz
    Powerbook G4 1.67 ghz 17
  • »01.10.09 - 14:09
    Profile