[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Changing the default 32-bit x86 arch for Fedora 12

On 06/15/2009 08:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Nottingham<notting redhat com>  writes:
drago01 (drago01 gmail com) said:
Moving to i686 is fine, non i686 chips are mostly dead (but the
perfomance gain from moving to i686 from i586 is questionable at

... how so? It's consistently 1-2% in reasonable benchmarks (real-world
code, albeit cpu-specific).

I don't understand how this proposal can survive even momentary
consideration.  We're going to cut off some nontrivial fraction
of our userbase to get 1-2% speedup for the rest?

As was already mentioned, the people who need speed are probably
on x86_64 already.  The x86 builds are for legacy hardware *now*,
and should be understood as such.

			regards, tom lane

This sounds like a pretty good argument against changing x86-32.

I suppose I had liked the idea of SSE2 being the minimum to squeeze maybe a few % more performance, but then again I wouldn't even use the i686 SSE2 Fedora myself. I have been using x86-64 for years where I care about performance.

No longer being able to upgrade my Athlon Thunderbird file server would be annoying. I don't care about performance there.

Then perhaps a significant % of the LTSP thin client hardware would be impossible to upgrade beyond Fedora 11.

How serious of an effort would a second 32bit Fedora be?

Is that effort really worth a few extra % of performance for an arch where people don't really care?

Warren Togami
wtogami redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]