> On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Jeffrey Scheel <scheel at us.ibm.com> wrote: > > centos-devel-bounces at centos.org wrote on 09/11/2015 08:10:42 AM: > > From: Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at 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.