Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that
> > are not i386 compatible or not.
> What about perusing the INT 6 idea, and going all the way up to i686?
> As i686 is already like ten(?) years old, I would say 99.9% [1] machines
> that run sarge are 686 and higher -- thus, moving to i686-specific
> optimizations would be good for the vast majority of users (this comes
> from someone who set up two servers on P MMX two weeks ago :p)
>
> If speed on archaic machines is an issue, you can always use the
> wonderful piece of software called apt-build.
>
While I support the removal of 386 support, I absolutely and strenuously
object to going to 686. 686 isn't all that old at all (1997 IIRC), and I
use a nunber of 4/586 machines still (I have one 486 which I use for
embedded development and 3 P100 boxen which are used for various things like
CVS server, gateway/firewall, testing various things).
Judging from my random contacts with users, it's a fairly usual setup to see
a network of higher (500Mhz+) end hardware machines which sit on a LAN in
1918space and are masqueraded to the outside internet by a firewall/gateway
running Debian on a 486 or low end pentium. I believe this to be a fairly
significant proportion of our userbase and I'd oppose any move to
marginalise them like this.
I'm not fully convinced that moving up to full 686 optimisation has that
many benefits under all but the highest loads anyway (in userspace at least,
we already have processor specific kernels). Do you have a link to
a URL with studies/analysis of this?
Cheers,
Stephen
Reply to: