Fedora 33's "Enterprise Linux Next" Effort Approved - Testbed For Raising CPU Requirements, Etc

[cb88]

No, not really. Do you honestly expect a community college in Arkansas to be able to afford nice things?

I think my Dell T5500 is in the same scenario with NVMe drives. It's a bit moot in my case since I use a Fedora install on a usb drive as my bootloader/backup OS.

well when Is started out at a local CC they had Windows 2000 on 600Mhz machines... and by the time I graduated at the local 4 year college, they had windows 7 on most machines, and Pentium Ds in most labs.. so I guess it just depends on who is donating to the college or where they are getting funding.

[skeevy420]

well when Is started out at a local CC they had Windows 2000 on 600Mhz machines... and by the time I graduated at the local 4 year college, they had windows 7 on most machines, and Pentium Ds in most labs.. so I guess it just depends on who is donating to the college or where they are getting funding.

That was me Circa 2001. Ran a Longhorn beta and that's when I discovered Linux and the "joys" of dual booting. I wonder how many other people saw XP or Longhorn and started prepping to jump ship like I did.

A few years later I got my first Athlon 64 and it was Linux only for a couple years....then Oblivion came out. Damn you Bethesda

So I was Quarantine Cleaning and found some old ATI Rage XL and Radeon GPUs and the Rage XL instructions had Windows 3.1 and OS/2 Warp driver install instructions. Why the two GPUs? I was like 14 or 15 and that was when I learned the difference between PCI and AGP

[cb88]

That was me Circa 2001. Ran a Longhorn beta and that's when I discovered Linux and the "joys" of dual booting. I wonder how many other people saw XP or Longhorn and started prepping to jump ship like I did.

A few years later I got my first Athlon 64 and it was Linux only for a couple years....then Oblivion came out. Damn you Bethesda

So I was Quarantine Cleaning and found some old ATI Rage XL and Radeon GPUs and the Rage XL instructions had Windows 3.1 and OS/2 Warp driver install instructions. Why the two GPUs? I was like 14 or 15 and that was when I learned the difference between PCI and AGP

Speaking of old GPUs... someone gave me a Rage Fury Maxx... broken fan on one of the GPUs I need to throw that in a Win98 build lol.

[coder]

Oh dear. Not this again. Must be from the same tool who bestowed this brilliant idea upon the world: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...e-AVX2-Require

[coder]

This a is a test for raising the limits on servers. If you're running a production RHEL server on a Pentium, losing out on that would be the absolute least of your issues...

You sound like someone who could use a clue.

Here, let me help you with that:

Intel Atom® Processor C3336

• Product Collection: Intel Atom® Processor C Series
• Code Name: Products formerly Denverton
• Vertical Segment: Server
• Processor Number: C3336
• Status: Launched
• Launch Date: Q3'18

See: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us...-1-50-ghz.html

Okay, a server CPU, launched within the last 1.5 years, and its status is not "Discontinued".

Hmmm... Denverton, eh?

ISA: Everything up to SSE4.2 (SMM, FPU, NX, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES)

And some models are offered with "a 7-year extended supply life as well as a 10-year reliability".

See: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton


Looks like skeevy420 had a point. A good point. Westmere is as far as they can go, without breaking even some server systems that are still in production and will remain under warranty for a long time.

[coder]

The industry focuses on what makes them money, not wishes from a random Phoronix user.

Aww... don't hate on skeevy420 just because your idea is stillborn.

If you think it should be done differently, you are free to make a product of your own and disprove all the fools that did not see it your way. Until then, you may remain silent.

Phoronix users with opinions gonna post. If you think they should be treated differently, you are free to make a board of your own and ban all but the tools that see your way. Until then, you may remain silent.

"The industry" needs to come up with a better solution for harnessing ISA extensions than mindlessly ratcheting up baseline requirements. Not only does that approach alienate customers with some less-capable systems, it also fails to satisfy those looking to fully harness the feature set on latest-and-greatest CPUs.

If it's really making money it cares about, then "the industry" should focus its energy on creative solutions, instead of power trips and trying to control customers. True, some customers are sheep, but I think Oracle already has most of them penned in.

[re:fi.64]

You sound like someone who could use a clue.

Here, let me help you with that:

See: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us...-1-50-ghz.html

Okay, a server CPU, launched within the last 1.5 years, and its status is not "Discontinued".

Hmmm... Denverton, eh?

And some models are offered with "a 7-year extended supply life as well as a 10-year reliability".

See: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/cores/denverton


Looks like skeevy420 had a point. A good point. Westmere is as far as they can go, without breaking even some server systems that are still in production and will remain under warranty for a long time.

Would you be running RHEL9 on Atom CPUs though... Buying cheap, low performance microprocessors for the type of server workload you'd pay a yearly subscription fee for isn't particularly common.

[Hibbelharry]

I don't think Intel Atoms are a real showstopper. For my opinion they have never been really good at anything, instead they were crippled and just low-cost solutions and sold via their price. Even efficiency isn't that great. There is not much energy comsumption turned into abysmal performance...

Let's go on: RHEL isn't exactly lowcost, so it's most of the time not paired with cheapo crippled hardware. If those two things are added we're talking about removing future compatibility for a crippled and mostly dead line of products from an enterprise line of software products.

I still don't mind.

[skeevy420]

Goddamn, y'all. RHEL is not just for servers. That might be one of their biggest customers, but it isn't their only customer. I have to reckon that they wouldn't be doing Gnome if that wasn't the case.

And, yes, some people will be running Atom based servers. Sometimes people take low-end stuff and make home file servers and whatnot out of them. People who use stuff like that are a decent portion of the Linux community.

[Hibbelharry]

Goddamn, y'all. RHEL is not just for servers.

That's not what I wanted to imply. I included clients in my thoughts. I just don't think companies spending money on software are absolutely unwilling to spend any money on at least semi-decent hardware for their clients. And if they don't do it right now, and they know they're going to be screwed in a while, they've still got time to prepare and phase out their crap.