Server product kernel requirements

[Prarit Bhargava]

On 10/31/2013 08:46 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/2013 07:50 PM, David Strauss wrote:
>>> I was, indeed, drawing an arbitrary line, but we must draw the line somewhere.
>>> Maybe Fedora 23+ have it set far higher. It's easy to adapt over time to support
>>> the high end of commodity servers while still being desktop-friendly; we don't
>>> have a long support window.
>>>
>>
>> Fair enough, but my question is, then, why 512?  If it is completely arbitrary
>> why not jump it to a high number that people have requested before and be done
>> with it?  Even 1024 would be acceptable to the HPC users I've talked with FWIW.
>>
>> Josh, would you be okay with 1024?
> 
> Maybe?  That seems like it would be fairly reasonable, but knowing
> what the overhead numbers are would help.  To be clear, right now we
> have things set thusly for NR_CPUS:
> 
> arm=8
> ppc32=4
> ppc64/ppc64p7=1024
> s390x=64
> i686=32
> x86_64=128
> 
> I believe our specific discussion here is about x86_64.  I don't think
> we're going to change i686 to anything higher than what it's set at
> right now.

Agreed -- I think we can safely say 32 is good enough for i686 :).  Let me do
some work on getting you numbers for x86_64 for 128 vs 1024.

I'll try and get this done in the next few days ... I'm still coming off the
2013 WORLD SERIES CHAMPION BOSTON RED SOX high. :)

P.

> 
> josh