3:53 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:46 -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:43 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:34PM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:34 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:24:42AM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Modern Summit hardware x460 is EMT64e (x440,x445 is not) but as
you
> > > > know sometimes customers run 32bit OS's on 64bit boxes.
> > >
> > > I hear this from time to time, and every time I ask "why
doesn't
> > > 32bit emulation in 64bit kernel work for you work?", the only
> > > answers that seen to come back are various flavours of
> > > "we didn't know about it" or "haven't tried
it".
> >
> > Is there a "Guarantee" that 32bit apps will just work with 64bit
> > kernels? I don't think all 32bit apps test (or work) on 64bit OS and a
> > such don't fall in the "Supported" configuration. Customers like
to have
> > ground to stand on when things break. If they run unsupported in their
> > software stack things can get messy (who will fix it?) if problems arise
> > or performance is bad compared to 32bit native.
>
> This is exactly the sort of hand-waving I was talking about.
> If something doesn't work, lets find out why and _FIX_ it.
> Scaremongering, and handwaving isn't going to solve a single bug.
As noted ISV's move slow and customers even slower. Some customers
would still buy AS2.1 if they could. I have head customers say (this
year) that the can't move to 2.6 (RHEL 4) because it hasn't been out
long enough and saw the risk as too high. It is out of my scope for me
to say what all the reasons are for why customers don't just run 64-bit
all the time, but they don't. I think change takes time.
but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
8:52 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 10:53:32PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 13:46 -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 15:43 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:34PM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 14:34 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:24:42AM -0700, keith mannthey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Modern Summit hardware x460 is EMT64e (x440,x445 is not) but
as you
> > > > > know sometimes customers run 32bit OS's on 64bit boxes.
> > > >
> > > > I hear this from time to time, and every time I ask "why
doesn't
> > > > 32bit emulation in 64bit kernel work for you work?", the only
> > > > answers that seen to come back are various flavours of
> > > > "we didn't know about it" or "haven't tried
it".
> > >
> > > Is there a "Guarantee" that 32bit apps will just work with
64bit
> > > kernels? I don't think all 32bit apps test (or work) on 64bit OS and
a
> > > such don't fall in the "Supported" configuration. Customers
like to have
> > > ground to stand on when things break. If they run unsupported in their
> > > software stack things can get messy (who will fix it?) if problems arise
> > > or performance is bad compared to 32bit native.
> >
> > This is exactly the sort of hand-waving I was talking about.
> > If something doesn't work, lets find out why and _FIX_ it.
> > Scaremongering, and handwaving isn't going to solve a single bug.
>
> As noted ISV's move slow and customers even slower. Some customers
> would still buy AS2.1 if they could. I have head customers say (this
> year) that the can't move to 2.6 (RHEL 4) because it hasn't been out
> long enough and saw the risk as too high. It is out of my scope for me
> to say what all the reasons are for why customers don't just run 64-bit
> all the time, but they don't. I think change takes time.
>
but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
FC6 will transition to RHEL5. So this is a perfect place to make sure
this is technically feasible and does not break non-IBM hardware.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Konrad Rzeszutek 1-(978)-392-3903 or 1-(617)-693-1718
IBM on-site partner.
8:57 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
>
> but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
FC6 will transition to RHEL5. So this is a perfect place to make sure
this is technically feasible and does not break non-IBM hardware.
ehm. So you want to (potentially) break our (=fedora users) kernels to
test your (=IBM) expensive hardware for RHEL only? Sounds like a really
bad deal for the fedora users to me...
9:06 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:57:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
>
> FC6 will transition to RHEL5. So this is a perfect place to make sure
> this is technically feasible and does not break non-IBM hardware.
ehm. So you want to (potentially) break our (=fedora users) kernels to
test your (=IBM) expensive hardware for RHEL only? Sounds like a really
bad deal for the fedora users to me...
Heh. Arjan thanks for keeping me honest. This would also benefit AMD machines,
since their architecture is in fact NUMA.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Konrad Rzeszutek 1-(978)-392-3903 or 1-(617)-693-1718
IBM on-site partner.
9:16 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 10:06 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 03:57:48PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > >
> > > but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
> >
> > FC6 will transition to RHEL5. So this is a perfect place to make sure
> > this is technically feasible and does not break non-IBM hardware.
>
> ehm. So you want to (potentially) break our (=fedora users) kernels to
> test your (=IBM) expensive hardware for RHEL only? Sounds like a really
> bad deal for the fedora users to me...
Heh. Arjan thanks for keeping me honest. This would also benefit AMD machines,
since their architecture is in fact NUMA.
have you actually checked of the i386 kernel architecture has the
support for the AMD numa detection? Last I checked it didn't....
8:02 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
ons, 26 07 2006 kl. 09:52 -0400, skrev Konrad Rzeszutek:
>
> but how is that type of customer relevant for FC6 ?
FC6 will transition to RHEL5. So this is a perfect place to make sure
this is technically feasible and does not break non-IBM hardware.
I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is required for
some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
We need to shake the misinformed opinion that Fedora is just a testing
ground for RHEL, it is no more a testing ground for RHEL than say Gentoo
is - we all test software, shake out the bugs, and everybody benefits
from changes. The fact that Red Hat can derive a product from Fedora is
of little importance for us, it's only of importance to Red Hat (we all
love Red Hat though, they have been very generous to the free software
community)
So this comes down to, does this benefit Fedora? - it's the only
question we need to ask.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm a member of the Fedora
community not the RHEL beta program.
- David Nielsen
9:37 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
Once upon a time, David Nielsen <david(a)lovesunix.net> said:
I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is required
for
some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
Objectives of Fedora Core:
13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
products.
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
9:58 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 09:37:57PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is
required for
> some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
> themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
Objectives of Fedora Core:
13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
products.
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
While the difference between "Form the basis of" and "Is a beta for"
may
seem scant, they _can_ be read as having quite different meanings.
And of course, note that's objective #13 -- not #1 or #4.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
10:04 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
ons, 26 07 2006 kl. 21:37 -0500, skrev Chris Adams:
Once upon a time, David Nielsen <david(a)lovesunix.net> said:
> I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is required for
> some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
> themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
Objectives of Fedora Core:
13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
products.
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
Is this official, I don't honestly get why this is an objective for
Fedora - not that we should make it hard to derive distros from Fedora
but to single out Red Hat is inviting those RHEL beta comments we've
been fighting so hard.
I've seen Rahul and others fight this very hard around the web, OSNews
being a primary source of many of those kinds of comments. So having
language like that on what appears as official documentation is just
feeding trolls in an unnecessary manner and does hurt the project. I
don't really see what Red Hat would gain from such a statement either,
it's not like changing it to be more neutral would lessen their
influence on the direction of the project. They are after all currently
half the board and most of the developers.
Not that it exactly reads out as "be the RHEL beta" unless you are
already looking for that kind of wording. It is however a but
unfortunate on the whole.
How about changing it to e.g.:
13. Form the basis for derived distributions
This would also cover OLPC and the many other project that rely on
Fedora as a base. We are versetile project and we should encourage as
many vendors as are willing to work with us to buy in, not just Red Hat,
so long as they can build their products on Fedora I expect they are
happy for any help and testing anyone can provide as would anyone.
- David Nielsen
10:17 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:04:01AM +0200, David Nielsen wrote:
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
Is this official, I don't honestly get why this is an objective for
Fedora - not that we should make it hard to derive distros from Fedora
but to single out Red Hat is inviting those RHEL beta comments we've
been fighting so hard.
Pretty official, yeah. And I don't think it hurts to admit it, because Red
Hat is indeed paying a large portion of the bills.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
11:30 p.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
ons, 26 07 2006 kl. 23:17 -0400, skrev Matthew Miller:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 05:04:01AM +0200, David Nielsen wrote:
> > http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
> Is this official, I don't honestly get why this is an objective for
> Fedora - not that we should make it hard to derive distros from Fedora
> but to single out Red Hat is inviting those RHEL beta comments we've
> been fighting so hard.
Pretty official, yeah. And I don't think it hurts to admit it, because Red
Hat is indeed paying a large portion of the bills.
So long as they pay their developers, they get to tell them what to
spend their time on.. right?
It appears to be Red Hat' opinion that telling their employees to
contribute to Fedora gives them a good return on their investment.
I tend to agree, they get influence on the direction of the project and
they get to take what Fedora produces for the specific purpose of making
money doing what Red Hat does namely supporting software. If I was in
the business Red Hat is in, I would definitely want to be part of Fedora
as well, along side of Red Hat if at all possible. Fedora is an awesome
piece of work and there's business enough to go round adapting and
supporting it for special cases.
That however still doesn't make it Fedoras mission in life to be a RHEL
beta nor is it even a perfect fit for that but it makes a good product
for them to adapt to their needs - imagine having to ensure 7 years of
ABI/API stability on every single Fedora release.. eek.
- David Nielsen
5:30 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
David Nielsen wrote:
ons, 26 07 2006 kl. 21:37 -0500, skrev Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, David Nielsen <david(a)lovesunix.net> said:
>> I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is required for
>> some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
>> themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
> Objectives of Fedora Core:
>
> 13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
> products.
>
> http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
Is this official, I don't honestly get why this is an objective for
Fedora - not that we should make it hard to derive distros from Fedora
but to single out Red Hat is inviting those RHEL beta comments we've
been fighting so hard.
NOTE: This is old outdated page not linked from the site anymore. We
need to get rid of all such pages. What you are seeing is a bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189069
Rahul
6:25 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:00:43PM +0530, Rahul wrote:
>>http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
>Is this official, I don't honestly get why this is an objective for
>Fedora - not that we should make it hard to derive distros from Fedora
>but to single out Red Hat is inviting those RHEL beta comments we've
>been fighting so hard.
NOTE: This is old outdated page not linked from the site anymore. We
need to get rid of all such pages. What you are seeing is a bug.
That page may be old, but it was the original "mission statement"
of Fedora. If that mission has changed, it should be replaced with something
equivalent (not just the "elevator pitch" from the wiki).
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
8:02 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
Once upon a time, Rahul <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> said:
NOTE: This is old outdated page not linked from the site anymore. We
need to get rid of all such pages. What you are seeing is a bug.
Well, I don't know if it is outdated, but it most certainly is linked
through the site (that's how I found it). Follow the FAQ link at the
top of the fedora.redhat.com page to
http://fedora.redhat.com/About/FAQ.html
and under the question "Who will make global technical decisions about
Fedora Core?" there is a link to the project objectives that goes to the
page I referenced.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
8:08 a.m.
New subject: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Rahul <sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> said:
> NOTE: This is old outdated page not linked from the site anymore. We
> need to get rid of all such pages. What you are seeing is a bug.
Well, I don't know if it is outdated, but it most certainly is linked
through the site (that's how I found it). Follow the FAQ link at the
top of the fedora.redhat.com page to
http://fedora.redhat.com/About/FAQ.html
and under the question "Who will make global technical decisions about
Fedora Core?" there is a link to the project objectives that goes to the
page I referenced.
Yes. If you notice the front page, the whole site is depreciated. We
have been slowing moving content and infrastructure to fedoraproject.org
and that process is not complete yet.
The newer FAQ is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ.
Rahul
11:58 p.m.
New subject: old versions of web pages still exist on f.r.c (was Re: [PATCH] set CONFIG_NUMA on PAE kernel, i686 only.)
Chris Adams schrieb:
Once upon a time, David Nielsen <david(a)lovesunix.net> said:
> I resent the notion that Fedora is a RHEL beta, if this is required for
> some future derived distro of Fedora then they can make the change
> themselves unless it has a clear benefit for Fedora.
Objectives of Fedora Core:
13. Form the basis of Red Hat's commercially supported operating system
products.
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
This side AFAIK is not reachable anymore via normal links on
http://fedora.redhat.com and AFAIK isn't official anymore (but google
still finds it). It should have been removed long ago (this problem is
know for some months now) but it seems our webadmins don't really care.
That sucks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189069
CU
thl
6494
days inactive
6496
days old
15 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Arjan van de Ven -
Chris Adams -
David Nielsen -
Konrad Rzeszutek -
Matthew Miller -
Rahul Sundaram -
Thorsten Leemhuis