On 9 December 2016 at 07:41, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 12/09/2016 01:22 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> We can't predict the future. But if Fedora builders use commercially >> supported hardware (and not pre-production samples from one of Red Hat's >> hardware partners), we can benefit from the efforts vendors put into fixing >> such issues. Otherwise, we will have to reverse-engineer and replicate such >> workarounds in our own software, which is *very* difficult because vendors >> are traditionally very tight-lipped about such issues. > > I believe all of the builders are commercially supported hardware, or > the equivalent of such in case of some of the alternative > architectures. If I remember correctly, on-site support and warranty > are two things required to get HW into the Fedora datacenter. Again, > hopefully someone from Infra will confirm. > Builders are a combination of things and depend on the architecture. The information I am giving may also not be completely accurate and will require someone from Release Engineering to answer. 1) Virtual machines running in kvm (some Dell hardware, some cisco, some ibm?) 2) Dell hardware systems running Fedora 25 for x86_64/i386 builds. 3) IBM PPC systems which are sometimes preproduction hardware but running virtual images. 4) Aarch64 hardware which are either production HP moonshot or preproduction Mustang systems 5) s390 virtual systems 6) arm systems from a no longer around manufacturer. Firmware updates depend on the manufacturer and the hardware. The cisco systems get updates very sporadically, the Dell boxes get every 6 months and the IBM do not seem to get updates anymore but are under hardware contract for replacements and such. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
