[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

AW: Proposal: Let's drop i386

> Von: dimitri.ledkov at surgut.co.uk [mailto:dimitri.ledkov at surgut.co.uk] Im
> On 11 May 2018 at 16:32, Fiedler Roman <Roman.Fiedler at ait.ac.at> wrote:
> >
> > > Von: ubuntu-devel [mailto:ubuntu-devel-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] Im
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Less and less non-amd64-compatible i386 hardware is available for
> > > consumers to buy today from anything but computer part recycling
> centers.
> > > The last of these machines were manufactured over a decade ago, and
> > > support from an increasing number of upstream projects has ended. ...
> > >
> > > ...
> >  >
> > > We still have a relatively high number if i386 downloads but that doesn't
> > > mean users machines are not capable of amd64. For the flavors remaining
> > > today on i386 here are some i386 to amd64 ratios for 18.04:
> > >
> > > Lubuntu cdimage - 0.87
> > > Lubuntu tracker - 0.64
> > > ...
> >
> > This decision is not only about numbers, but somehow also about ethics. The
> number of e.g. wheel-chair users or other disabled persons might not be
> relevant for a society/economy in terms of numbers. But we honor the value
> of freedom, also for those, who are not that well off than we are. Those would
> not be able to participate in the same way, if we would not assist them by
> providing support for that minority.
> >
> > So for the i386 discussion, there might be only two distinct groups of users
> worth considering:
> >
> > a) Those, who cannot afford newer systems due to economical reasons.
> >
> > b) Those, who do not want to consume more resources due to ethical
> considerations (that's the one for me): how many people could fed or how
> much CO2 prevented, if all systems were some percent smaller on disk/RAM,
> including IT-system production and operation related resource usage?
> Wasting resources is also about freedom, as we deprive others who cannot
> afford them/fight for them in the same way we can do.
> >
> "Consume more resources" is a bit vague. Environmental impact is
> correlated with performance-per-watt measurements. That improves with
> the newer generation of lithography, better support of newer and more
> efficient instruction sets, ability to dynamically clock-down cpu
> cores etc...

That would be true when running software on old hardware. That is why at work I prefer them running as i386 guests on current hardware, both kvm mode and as LXC guests. Hardware is standard rack-based servers (generation 2016?).

As mentioned by others, RAM power consumption is one major source of energy consumption for low TDP-devices (modern boards like Intel-NUC- low-TDP or embedded i386-processors, mostly for PoS-applications, IoT). For private use on those devices, I only install that amount of RAM, that is really required. For company RAM optimization costs in relation to environmental savings would be far too low for considering adding/removing of RAM.

Best regards,