Live data from Hacker News

IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

virtuallyfun.com

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#31

I still wonder why neither qemu nor any other (open-source) emulator ever tackled Itanium emulation. Is the CPU architecture so complicated? Is it so undocumented? I would think that projects like MAME have in the past reverse-engineered and emulated much more complicated and undocumented systems (some of which were even encrypted). So why don't we have any Itanium emulators yet?

It doesn’t really run anything interesting, I’d guess. PA-RISC HPUX can be run on qemu already, if you want the ancient crappy HP flavored UNIX experience for some reason.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#32

AIX was/is one of the few big commercial unixes I've never got to touch, is it worth it?

I'm surprised at all the positive things being said about AIX in this thread. I thought it was pretty terrible (my priors were SunOS, Solaris, HP/UX, IRIX, Linux, BSD). Personally, I preferred any of the above over AIX.

AIX configuration was opaque with a windows registry style setup.

All the standard utilities like sed, awk, etc., were versions from 1970. It was incredibly frustrating to use. They did supply some gnu software (IBM called it "linux" software), but it was managed through a second, separate, package manager, bare rpm.

Decade(s) after every other nix had snapshots, the way to get a consistent backup on AIX was to break your boot disk mirror and backup the orphaned disk (while praying you didn't have a disk failure).

Everything was spawned directly out of inittab. No sys-v/rc/etc. scripts.

A hard down could break the journal on their filesystem rather than having the filesystem journal save your data. An fsck would not fix the journal.

Most free software did not "just build and run" on AIX. Just about anything using autoconf required a custom wrapper around AIX's malloc to prevent it from segfaulting when being run, or fixing autoconf scripts to not mis-detect missing capabilities in AIX.

AIX was not a first tier system for many vendors. I had to spend time in a debugger providing info to our SAN vendor on issues with their agent for AIX (we never had issues with their software for Solaris, Linux, or Windows).

The hardware was funky. They did "neat" things like sharing a single CDROM drive between an entire rack of servers. But, to re-assign the CD drive, the IDE bus had to be re-assigned, as well as the PCI bus. And, invariably something would be blocking this, so "neat" in practice became a PITA.

On the positives, AIX was stable once everything was dialed in, just like any other NIX. It was also trivial to create a bootable DR restore ISO for a system. And, their debugger was pleasant to use when diagnosing core dumps.

"It used to be said that AIX looks like one space alien discovered Unix, and described it to another different space alien who then implemented AIX. But their universal translators were broken and they'd had to gesture a lot." -- Paul Tomblin

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#33

I still wonder why neither qemu nor any other (open-source) emulator ever tackled Itanium emulation. Is the CPU architecture so complicated? Is it so undocumented? I would think that projects like MAME have in the past reverse-engineered and emulated much more complicated and undocumented systems (some of which were even encrypted). So why don't we have any Itanium emulators yet?

I'd guess there's no motivation for an Itanium emulator, because there's no exciting application or system that was exclusively for Itanium.

MAME emulates a host of odd things because fun games run on those odd things and people would like to play those without having the hardware. You can run AIX on lots of hardware, so running it on emulated Itanium wouldn't be very fun.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#34
I didn't have much exposure to AIX as opposed to Linux and BSD but I did not enjoy working with it at all. There are many others like me and I always attributed this to GNU's popularity. Every task that was simple on Linux involved reading manuals and looking up informational on AIX.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#35

AIX was/is one of the few big commercial unixes I've never got to touch, is it worth it?

When the RS/6000 launched, AIX had some neat system management OS features and hypertext documentation that was better than any of the other workstation vendors at the time.

Also, the RS/6000 and/or AIX was noticeably fast at some things. I remember a Systems Engineer being amazed that you could invoke a shell window (aixterm, IIRC), and it snapped instantly onto the screen, no lag.) The workstation vendors were often leapfrogging each other, but on that one metric, 0 perceptible time was new. I don't remember how compiles compared.

If you can pick up an RS/6000 on eBay, with licenses and install media, it might be a little fun to play with. And maybe either check that GCC will work, or that you're getting license and media for the compiler.

Today, though, there's so much neat stuff to play with atop Linux alone, that you could never get through it all. And, if you haven't already made your fortune and retired from paid work, things atop Linux are also more likely to be more directly relevant to paid jobs for current production environments, or at least to be better for resume keyword-matching.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#36
post #27

It's very interesting to think AIX was ported to such a foreign architecture as it was so deeply tied to the R/S 6000 hardware. IBM Austin is where AIX was developed in the 90s.

RS/6000 was the fourth AIX platform after x86 (AIX 1.x), IBM RT/ROMP (AIX 2.x), and the mainframe (AIX/370, AIX/390)

How related to one another were those though? I remember AIX being expanded to “Any IBM UNIX”.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#37
post #22

Back when I dealt with AIX (1997-2001) it was common to deride it on usenet as “UNIX by and for drunk aliens” but I myself enjoyed its very regular naming conventions and extremely low footprint whilst under intensive memory load, which was common back then when RAM was stratospherically expensive. Excellent NUMA support too.

i remember every error message from every unix tool spitting out some unique identifier code... i presume some ibm documentation standard.

i also remember a weird gui for administering everything. i assume that was the result of ibm's big investments.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#38

I still wonder why neither qemu nor any other (open-source) emulator ever tackled Itanium emulation. Is the CPU architecture so complicated? Is it so undocumented? I would think that projects like MAME have in the past reverse-engineered and emulated much more complicated and undocumented systems (some of which were even encrypted). So why don't we have any Itanium emulators yet?

Part of the reason is that Itanium hardware has always been expensive. You need the full hardware to compare against (not just CPU but also to test firmware and OS). A number of years ago I was interested in kickstarting QEMU development for it by building on the existing work and adding a new virtual platform. But HP Itanium hardware in Europe is still prohibitively expensive for me and disappears quickly.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#39
post #29

To bootstrap GCC all you need is Linux. Crosscompile GCC on Linux to generate a set of binaries and install on AIX. Job done.

Cross-compiling for AIX+IA64+COFF is going to be tricky. I rather doubt binutils supports that particular combination of items

  *** Configuration ia64-ibm-aix is obsolete.
  *** Specify --enable-obsolete to build it anyway.
  *** Support will be REMOVED in the next major release of BINUTILS,
  *** unless a maintainer comes forward.

Re: IBM AIX for IA64 (Itanium) a.k.a. Project Monterey Runs Again

#40

>IBM who brought it’s [ sic ] AIX This is misleading at best. AIX didn't exist for IBM to purchase. IBM collaborated with Interactive Systems Corporation under contract to develop AIX in 1985 and released AIX Version 1 in 1986. IBM collaborated with Locus Computing Corporation, again under contract, to release Version 2 in 1992. Since the mid-1980's, IBM has poured massive development into AIX, which got so stable an…

Heh, yea I was sorely disappointed when I switched from primarily admining AIX to Linux for work. While I had played with Linux long before I got started with AIX, I had only ever used it on desktop workstations and such. Lots of things like ethernet channel bonding that worked fine out of the box on AIX took endless hours of fiddling to get it to sort of work under Linux.
Post reply on HN