On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Jeffrey Scheel scheel@us.ibm.com wrote:
centos-devel-bounces@centos.org wrote on 09/11/2015 08:10:42 AM:
From: Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org On 11/09/15 13:11, Jeffrey Scheel wrote:
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as well. I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
I believe the LE VM's are already there, or will be there sometime today ( Fabian is working with James for those ).
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
that would be good, although we've had more request for power5 than power8 :)
The desire to have Power5 support on Centos7 could lead to an interesting discussion. RHEL 7 on Power does not support POWER5. This means that we could change CentOS to include it, but then that likely means the performance of CentOS7 on POWER8 would suffer compared to RHEL7.
I'm the newbie here so will follow the lead of the community on how to solve. It should be a great discussion, though. I love the age-old engineering paradox (as I call it): cheap, fast, good, pick 2! -Jeff
My vote for folks that want different power tunings from RHEL 7 would be to either:
a) Create separate ppc64p[456] rpm arches and toolchains so as to not hobble the p7/p8 tunings in RHEL7 ppc64le/ppc64. This would be similar to Fedora’s ppc64p7 arch that existed for a brief time. If you want to match RHEL7 compatibility, thou shouldn’t mess with the gcc/glibc tunings. A similar path could be followed for any embedded IBM/Freescale ppc chips.
b) Think hard about a c6 port for ppc64 which would support P6 at least. Doesn’t get you anywhere fast with LE and would be tackled after the c7 ppc64le and ppc64 efforts.