On 06/15/2009 08:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Nottingham<notting@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
drago01 (drago01@xxxxxxxxx) 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
best).
... 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@xxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
