Le ven. 5 juin 2020 à 09:41, Linux User #330250 <linuxuser330...@gmx.net> a écrit : > Because: why not use btrfs on a 64-Bit PowerPC, right?
Well, ZFS works fine on PPC64 (and PPC!) and 'someone' even contributed AltiVec acceleration for the RAID-Z algorithms :-) [in all fairness, I haven't tried ZFS Root on PPC64, only on x68-64 & SPARC64]. On the subject of page size - 64 KiB makes a lot more sense than 4 KiB when you have gigabytes of memory. The fact that x86-64 is stuck with the page size of a 80386 with 4 MiB of RAM doesn't mean everyone should be... And 64 KiB should gain traction on modern hardware, as it's the default in e.g. RedHat for Arm64 (why RISC-V thinks 4 KiB is OK for everyone I'll never understand, it's fine for small embedded but not larger systems). The PowerPC 970 only has 1024 entries in it's TLB IIRC, it's probably quite useful to be able to map 64 MiB instead of 4 MiB without TLB reloads... Broken software that can't work with non-4 KiB page size should be fixed rather than forcing everyone to stay on the 80's idea of memory usage. Most G5 owners probably maxed-out memory as it's dirt cheap nowadays (I know I have the full 16 GiB), and those CPUs need all the help they can get. That being said - I'm not the one doing the work and it's probably time-consuming to fix support for old hardware (which may or may not be even capable to deal with it in the first place), so if the only way to get proper support for old GPUs is to go back to 4 KiB page size, so be it. I'd appreciate it if we kept both variant rather than a full revert, though (if only for testing support isn't broken as it was for a while last year). Cordially, -- Romain Dolbeau