[KLUG Members] Re: REDHAT: My suggestion on organizing binary CDs for x86 chip-specific optimizations

[Bruce Smith]

> > First on the NFS distro.  That's a very good idea, but personally I
> > don't have enough Linux boxes to make it worth my while.  For KLUG it
> > wouldn't sell any CD's.  When the day comes when we convert all of our
> > Windows boxes to Linux at work, then I'll probably make a NFS distro
> > available here.  (unless we go with all LSTP boxes :)
> 
> Right.  I was just saying the "NFS approach" is how I handle dealing
> with updates, added packages, optimizations, etc...  I just lug my
> notebook everywhere I go, and install it for people.  If they want a
> copy, I plunk the ~2GB over on one of their servers or on the same
> system (if they don't have another).

Sure, you're needs are slightly different than mine.  
That's a good approach for what you're doing.

> So I made a suggestion to RedHat on how to approach this in a way that
> adds the fewest CDs possibly, but expands their options.  Furthermore,
> it also addresses the forthcoming issues with x86-64 optimizations.  At
> the same time, the "Default" CD #1 is what most users would still
> download and distribute.  The additional CDs are just for servers, IT
> professionals and/or enthusiasts as warranted.

I think it'd be a good idea for a startup (like how Mandrake started),
offering CPU optimized Redhat distributions.  I've thought about it...

> > If there was a GREAT demand for it from CD buying KLUG members, then I'd
> > think harder.  A LOT greater demand than I have for the SGI/XFS CD!!!
> 
> The new "approach" wouldn't change SGI's ability to add another CD to
> the mix.

I was commenting on the [lack of] number of SGI CD's I've sold for the
addon to BSware 7.2.

If nobody is going to buy these optimized CD's from KLUG, it's not worth
the hassle.  That's the bottom line for me.  Nobody is buying my SGI CD,
so it won't be offered for 7.3/8.0 and beyond.

> > With the price of hardware now, is it worth the time to create a CPU
> > specific distribution?
> 
> Yes.  MMX, SSE and 3DNow! make a _crapload_of_difference_ when it comes
> to multimedia, scientific and engineering -- we're talking upto an order
> of magnitude!  AMD's extra FPU pipes often go unused as a result of not
> having optimizations.  Heck, 3DNow! can accelerate some network
> operations too.
> 
> Mandrake has found that Pentium optimizations result in a ~30% increase
> in performance. 

Is that Mandrake's numbers?  I take them with a grain of salt.
"_up_to_30%" can also mean 1% or less.  

I'm sure it's different for everyone depending on their mix of
applications.

> I'm talking taking this to a new level, one that's
> going to be required for x86-64 anyway.  So instead of making one CD set
> for x86 and one for x86-64, why not make a more "modular" CD set for
> accommodating different x86 CPUs with only one CD change?

Sure.

> > Personally, I have more CPU horsepower than I need on my desktops.
> > My favorite editor is VI, would a i686 optimized VI binary help me?
> > I think not.
> 
> *SMACK*  ;-P  Did you or did you NOT read the _details_??? 

No, that's called me being a smart a$$.   :-)

I was also pointing out that it may help out other people more than
myself.  People who make better use of a desktop and GUI editors for
example.  Since my favorite window is an xterm, I'm not a good example
of someone to enjoy the advantages of an optimized distribution.

> > All my servers have underutilized CPU's now, so slightly more
> > efficient binaries wouldn't do me any good.
> 
> *SMACK*  ;-P
> 1.  CPU Utilization != Server Throughput
> 2.  x86 chip-specific optimizations can affect I/O as much as CPU

Again, I'm a very bad case for needing more throughput.  My employer
makes big metal things that most people in the world never heard of, nor
do they care.  We upgraded the web server from a P2-400 to a dual P3-733
to keep marketing happy, but the P2-400 was overkill for our traffic. 
Believe me, we're NO yahoo.com.

> > But I'm only one case.  How about everyone else?  How many people would
> > notice a 1%-10% performance boost in _certain_ binaries?  (the kernel
> > and glibc are already CPU optimized, for the most part)
> 
> Try even 200-300% in some applications! 

What kind of applications are the "some"?  Do GUI desktops get more
improvement than server applications like squid, apache/php, ... ?

> Or don't you understand the
> concept of SIMD let alone general ALU and FPU optimizations and other
> details? 

Nope, I don't have a clue.  And PLEASE _DON'T_ EXPLAIN!!!
I would still be clueless after your explanation!    :-)

I'm happy when I don't have to wait for normal desktop operations.  
Evolution, Galeon, and VI are plenty responsive for my needs on the
hardware I'm running.  Those three applications make up over 90% of 
what I do on my desktop.

> I love how people talk about the Athlon is "as fast or not as
> fast" as the Pentium CPUs based on _Intel_optimized_software_.  Have you
> _ever_ run software that is Athlon optimized???  If the Quake 3 engine
> was offered in an Athlon optimized version, it would run ~40% faster
> (let alone probably slower on Pentium CPUs).  I'm not just talking
> MMX/SSE v. 3DNow! here, but optimized binaries as a whole.

I can see where it would help Quake.  BUT, I'm not a gamer,
so I'm still a bad case study for needing this.

> > And for you guys running Linux on an old 386, you already have a
> > complete distribution optimized for your specific CPU!!!   ;-)
> 
> And that would *NOT* change for them in the new model. 

Understood.  Again, my attempt at being a smart a$$.
(seems like I'd be good at it by now :)

> The "Default" CD
> #1 would address most everyone.  At the same time, those with newer
> systems would have optimizations that would probably outperform
> Mandrake's i586 "optimized-by-default" distro.

I'm sure it would outperform Mandrake.

My question is how many readers of this list would be interested?  

I'm not going to do it for myself, but I might be talked into doing it
if there is enough interest.

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------