From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Wed Jun 13 18:09:11 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF831001F99 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A5D71367 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A903E1001F94; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAC81001F93 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x22b.google.com (mail-it0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0132671365 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j135-v6so5158582itj.1 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=muxbzQ1ZTPT+EFm/vHUfyGom5Iz8xaAllgxQTKG9ndM=; b=n4p4/c5s7uH2WJHdQOks0NR2h79pMAY7ZwwiRDVqwAhtOigpDv6B/5mudgMwUUsEDL oblBjo8u7jFqpePoEO9YIz89sElsGuO5fJZF7I2651X78+mSZPU+EZVuSL+b7AapAuXe aMXXUdkYz+iu/enLXOUizy5tD+n3OTWa1J7+UEmU3pL5Xb56UgjrHismy37ZtcXfwWXF a/LSO6ibt7e0ds3gAODgUogHSq5mhMWatVcw709moAGqzhoXWCvNLnBRFLxAlbIrJDpi JQ8OzVKX7SqnjgCQXin0co79aPjLnY4huPbBJUNHGrIfssVgdk9S9alDF+K42qy9W2Np zTmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=muxbzQ1ZTPT+EFm/vHUfyGom5Iz8xaAllgxQTKG9ndM=; b=Y4DjVDlnFcY7A/5wKjE6uG93kuUOaPX0+CwwgIoNLx8MtER6sqF0VGk7NG7soFuVuy N4WH8QXMoEFF+/XDS2d7VCHN8rwm7smlBchWMdkwU5yn13UFFJc7FEE0oag92zksDWlj Y+BHZuEL+4rOVsgfIPGqKgFm5oIRSoHQyn43odtZsk5OOw5mTcWHGDYUlbDPodF+FMF2 vP2vPZreYPpj9D6c1W+XtXGaTgYdWfrG5P7NIpDQHWlSxD9o+zr0K4CMEzddSt1ZFUNk nlvdTgp02oPowvbYhC6qrwrqBV5JCeZGCCsHsxI/Prs6k9xrKkvlVV6QKOqjt7X9M0pW bDlA== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E1lWmKj0LNLmpQtak7/ewyBqPbQIm8oRxfzfD3P05AggDyfH23l jiq7pgHAE55RbEvySDCksiKE2SMpb8+qGgfWpnY1ig== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLe2k3hwZePxE5LHTLGm/Zovta769QqVl6RW0I6/Oeo1XzFWwm28oRwFMeRryvbW11BrmY703nObJShJJkkZPs= X-Received: by 2002:a02:6348:: with SMTP id j69-v6mr838749jac.45.1528913349277; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:09:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 2002:a4f:d028:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:09:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:1052:acc7:f9de:2b6d] In-Reply-To: <201806131739.w5DHd6sl040722@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201806131739.w5DHd6sl040722@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 12:09:08 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a-642fCUulx0DUc4ohG_ifEMUoU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Armeb removal before 12 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: "freebsd-arm@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.26 X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 18:09:11 -0000 On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > I'd like to remove armeb before 12.0. > > > > It's poorly supported today. > > > > Nobody has tested the concurrency kit changes on it. And ck is now > > mandatory. We don't even know if it works or not. > > > > Last time we asked, it took quite a while to find users. > > > > It maxes out at 256MB of RAM. This is barely large enough for FreeBSD to > > run in. > > 64MB is usable for 32 bit archs, I have many VM's running in > that configuration, so this item should not be in this list. Yes and no. A VM is a different beast to a real box. arm requires more memory in general, and a little more on real machines. You can run it in 128MB and do useful things, but not very many things. One cannot, for example, run a wifi access point on arm in 128MB, at least on this hardware. Adrian's ultra-stripped down stuff might be possible, but nobody has ported it to this hardware despite it being ported to many weird things. Likewise with the ZRouter project. You could run a simple sshd / dns server on it, but there's lots of other alternatives for that which are dirt cheap. One can, with a lot of effort, do 64MB too, but it's more effort than for i386. Even at 64MB on i386, though, the number of things you can do is quite limited. You can't build anything on that machine. DNS + SSH is possible here as well, as long as the zones are too big. So I'll concede the point it's possible, and I'm not looking to make it not be possible. However, we do need to draw the line somewhere, and this is but one factor of many. Were it the only factor here, we wouldn't be contemplating removal. Most people want to do more ambitious things that can be done in 256MB is all I was trying to say. > The hardware was last made almost a decade ago. > > > > It uses non-standard non-mainstream boot loaders (boot technology has > moved > > on from redboot). > > > > The cost of doing API sweeps, make universe runs, etc exceeds the benefit > > to the project. > > > > So, given all these factors, it sounds like a good candidate for > retirement. > > > > Therefore, I'd like to remove it on July 15th. > > > > Comments? (please keep them on topic to this specific thing: there's > other > > things that may also be past their freshness date, we'll discuss those > in a > > separate thread). > > Given all the other valid reasons, I have no objection to removal of armeb. Excellent. Warner