[OpenIndiana-discuss] 32-bit support in OpenIndiana Hipster

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 32-bit support in OpenIndiana...:

> On the other hand, to properly utilize the attractive feature of
> transparently supporting both
> 32-bit and 64-bit systems via isaexec,

When there was a giant corporation funding development, isaexec was a neat
feature.  Not required to support 32 bit or 64 bit executables,
but neat.

With the current number of contributors to OI, reducing the maintenance
burden is important.  Doing away with dual builds of executables will
hopefully help.

It's perfectly possible to support both 32 bit and 64 executables on
a system where all (or most) of the OS executables are only 64 bit.
That's exactly how Linux does it.  I can explain if needed, but I think
you understand that.

Alexander has already said that many of the OS *libraries* would be
provided in both 64 bit and 32 bit variants.  That makes it possible to
continue to run your own 32 bit software on a 64 bit system -- you just
need to ensure that the library dependencies are present.

In my opinion, providing 32 bit binaries along side 64 bit binaries on
a 64 bit system is most often just pointless.  There are exceptions, for
things like firefox where external binary-only plugins

> It would also be nice to reduce the (physical) memory requirement,
> especially of the OI
> installer

It's not clear to me from what you've said, so just to clarify: having
a 64 bit installer will require somewhat more RAM than having a 32 bit
installer.  If you want a lightweight installer, you probably want to keep
it 32 bit and you likely want to spin your own Illumos-based distribution.
The goal of having a tiny installer for minimal systems is somewhat at
odds with the goal of having a full-featured installer for server and
desktop operating systems.

Peter did a talk about "how low can you go" related to low-memory
Illumos-derived systems.  If you're not already aware of it, you may
want to check the list archives and to find more info about it.

Tim

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Alexander Pyhalov <alp at rsu.ru> wrote:
>
>> On 02/16/2015 13:06, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> We currently support (in some way) 32-bit systems. We avoid shipping
>>> 64-binaries in default path or use isaexec for such things.
>>> But do we really need it? I haven't seen PC (not speaking about server)
>>> without 64-bit CPU for at least 8 years.
>>>
>>> Dropping support for 32-bit systems will allow us to port Oracle sources
>>> easier. Potentially, this solves time_t overflow. We could think about
>>> largefile support less.
>>>
>>> What are the cons of keeping support for 32-bit systems? I don't see
>>> much. If you see them, please, speak now.
>>>
>>> I'm inclined to make changes, breaking 32-bit systems only after next
>>> ISO snapshot. Of course, 32-bit libraries will be preserved.
>>>
>>
>> Today I've shipped PostgreSQL 9.5. AMD64 version still doesn't have
>> PL/Perl support, because we ship 32-bit Perl. The next Perl version which
>> we ship will be 64-bit only. I don't think there's much benefit in
>> supporting 32bit systems. So, consider this an official statement.
>>
>> The next OI Hipster snapshot will no pretend to support 32bit CPUS.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Alexander Pyhalov,
>> system administrator of Southern Federal University IT department
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> openindiana-discuss mailing list
>> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> openindiana-discuss mailing list
> openindiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>

-- 
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney at ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure                  701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, Quentin Burdick Building                  701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164