- Community Home
- >
- Servers and Operating Systems
- >
- Legacy
- >
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- >
- pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
Categories
Company
Local Language
Forums
Discussions
Forums
- Data Protection and Retention
- Entry Storage Systems
- Legacy
- Midrange and Enterprise Storage
- Storage Networking
- HPE Nimble Storage
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussions
Forums
Discussions
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
- BladeSystem Infrastructure and Application Solutions
- Appliance Servers
- Alpha Servers
- BackOffice Products
- Internet Products
- HPE 9000 and HPE e3000 Servers
- Networking
- Netservers
- Secure OS Software for Linux
- Server Management (Insight Manager 7)
- Windows Server 2003
- Operating System - Tru64 Unix
- ProLiant Deployment and Provisioning
- Linux-Based Community / Regional
- Microsoft System Center Integration
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Discussion Boards
Community
Resources
Forums
Blogs
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 03:32 AM
11-07-2007 03:32 AM
pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0? How can I tell which
one I have? I know my servers are not
Itanium processors.
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 03:36 AM
11-07-2007 03:36 AM
SolutionGo to sam -> performance monitors -> system properties
result can be similar to this:
CPU Version: 1.1e PA7300
this is a PA-7300 CPU pa-risc1.1
Hope this helps!
Regards
Torsten.
__________________________________________________
There are only 10 types of people in the world -
those who understand binary, and those who don't.
__________________________________________________
No support by private messages. Please ask the forum!
If you feel this was helpful please click the KUDOS! thumb below!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 03:47 AM
11-07-2007 03:47 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 03:55 AM
11-07-2007 03:55 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 04:18 AM
11-07-2007 04:18 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
PA-RISC = ??
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 04:54 AM
11-07-2007 04:54 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
-- Determine the CPU version
# getconf CPU_VERSION
532
-- Convert above decimal value to hexadecimal
# echo 0d532=x | adb
214
-- Match hex value to PARISC version given in the unistd.h file
# grep 0x214 /usr/include/sys/unistd.h
# define CPU_PA_RISC2_0 0x214 /* HP PA-RISC2.0 */
So the above CPU is a PA-RISC 2.0
~hope it helps
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 05:02 AM
11-07-2007 05:02 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
>>PA-RISC = ??
Yes, definitely. The PA in PA8700 gives it away.
Pete
Pete
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 05:09 AM
11-07-2007 05:09 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
http://ftp.parisc-linux.org/docs/whitepapers/PA-8700wp.pdf
page 4
Sandman, thank you very much for excellent tip
Best Regards
Murat
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 05:29 AM
11-07-2007 05:29 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
Does ported versions of software for
PA-RISC 1.0 work with PA-RISC 2.0 ?
Thanks guys
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 06:16 AM
11-07-2007 06:16 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
I would say porting from PARISC 1.0 to PARISC 2.0 should not be a problem owing to backward compatibility but then again this is one of those questions that only HP can provide a definitive answer for.
~hope it helps
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-07-2007 06:25 PM
11-07-2007 06:25 PM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
will run fine on 2.0 in and of itself.
However, you'll usually find that 1.0 or 1.1 code was compiled on an older version of
HP-UX, and HP-UX doesn't have a perfect
record of backward compatibility for
old code running on newer releases.
In other words, try running it :)
We often compile code for 1.1 on HP-UX 11i v2 and ship it to clients with 2.0 systems ... because we also have clients with 1.1 systems on 11i v2 (the 1.1 will run on both, the 2.0 won't run on 1.1 systems).
The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligble. (And, in some cases, 1.1 32-bit is faster than 2.0 64-bit ... your mileage may vary).
Stan
sieler@allegro.com
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-08-2007 07:22 AM
11-08-2007 07:22 AM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
# getconf CPU_VERSION | xargs -i echo 0d{}=x | adb | xargs -i grep 0x{} /usr/include/sys/unistd.h
...and the above will work for both PA-RISC and IPF machines.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
11-08-2007 07:05 PM
11-08-2007 07:05 PM
Re: pa-risc1.1 pa-risc2.0
Where are you getting your PA 1.0 code?
(Of course you originally said 1.1.)
>Sandman: I would say porting from PA-RISC 1.0 to PA-RISC 2.0 should not be a problem
Yes, this should be forward compatible, unless kernel intrusive.
>Stan: The performance difference between the 1.1 and 2.0 code is generally negligible.
This is not true if doing a lot of shlib calls to small functions.