Kevin Fenzi (kevin@scrye.com) said:
Another aspect of xfs we may want to investigate and get feedback from filesystem folks is how well xfs works on 32bit these days.
RHEL7 doesn't have a 32bit version in their beta, so they only need to support 64bit xfs. Does the fact that we expect to have 32bit workstation and/or server weigh into this decision any?
We expect to have a 32-bit workstation or server?
Not trying to troll, but I don't know that any of these were specifically discussed or specified in the products - are there any arches where Fedora currently exists that we don't necessarily care about having a particular product on? (For example, if you expand to secondary arches, I'd question the idea of s390 Workstation.)
Bill, who does have a 32-bit x86 server under his home desk...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2014 04:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kevin Fenzi (kevin@scrye.com) said:
Another aspect of xfs we may want to investigate and get feedback from filesystem folks is how well xfs works on 32bit these days.
RHEL7 doesn't have a 32bit version in their beta, so they only need to support 64bit xfs. Does the fact that we expect to have 32bit workstation and/or server weigh into this decision any?
We expect to have a 32-bit workstation or server?
Not trying to troll, but I don't know that any of these were specifically discussed or specified in the products - are there any arches where Fedora currently exists that we don't necessarily care about having a particular product on? (For example, if you expand to secondary arches, I'd question the idea of s390 Workstation.)
Bill, who does have a 32-bit x86 server under his home desk...
That's one of the topics scheduled to be discussed in the Server Technical Specification meeting tomorrow. My personal opinion is that the Server should support any arch defined by FESCo as a "primary arch", which today would mean 32-bit and 64-bit x86 as well as armv7hl.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Stephen Gallagher