Last I checked, NetBSD doesn't support any sort of multiprocessor VAX. Multiprocessor VAXes exist, but you're stuck with either Ultrix or VMS on them.
Pat On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave McGuire <mcgu...@neurotica.com> writes: > > On 06/29/2014 10:54 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> Maybe I'm just not playful enough, but keeping a platform alive so we > >> can run postgres in simulator seems a bit, well, pointless. > > > On the "in a simulator" matter: It's important to keep in mind that > > there are more VAXen out there than just simulated ones. I'm offering > > up a simulated one here because I can spin it up in a dedicated VM on a > > VMware host that's already running and I already have power budget for. > > I could just as easily run it on real hardware...there are, at last > > count, close to forty real-iron VAXen here, but only a few of those are > > running 24/7. I'd happily bring up another one to do Postgres builds > > and testing, if someone will send me the bucks to pay for the additional > > power and cooling. (that is a real offer) > > Well, the issue from our point of view is that a lot of what we care about > testing is extremely low-level hardware behavior, like whether spinlocks > work as expected across processors. It's not clear that a simulator would > provide a sufficiently accurate emulation. > > OTOH, the really nasty issues like cache coherency rules don't arise in > single-processor systems. So unless you have a multiprocessor VAX > available to spin up, a simulator may tell us as much as we'd learn > anyway. > > (If you have got one, maybe some cash could be found --- we do have > project funds available, and I think they'd be well spent on testing > purposes. I don't make those decisions though.) > > regards, tom lane > >
