On 12/18/2014 12:52 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
looking at the bugs, seems i had an opinion on this 2 years ago[1]
- not clear if the "emulation levels" to user are based on compat levels (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, etc.), or the actual string (-m rhel6.5, -m rhel7.1,e tc.) the actual string of machine type. The changes for compat level are more complex than machine type. Also, only the machine type "guarantees" the hw stays the same. we can look at the compat level further, but so far the machine type is the only thing defining the supported features. From the scheduler perspective it seems to me it's better to create two clusters. Cluster is supposed to define the supported features. Is anything not covered?
how do you know which of the more advanced features in your current cluster level were not tested with the lower emulation level? also, why expose an internal arbitrary string to the user, which they have no way to understand/know what it means?