Closed jcpunk closed 8 months ago
@jcpunk We agree the current situation isn't great. Changing facter to return the model for each physical processor makes more sense, but would have to be done in Facter 5 or feature flagged. We don't have plans on addressing this anytime soon, but if you'd like to submit a PR to feature flag the behavior, then please do. I've added the help wanted
label accordingly.
I fear I don't have sufficient ruby in my background for this to be fruitful... You'd basically have to hold my hand through far too much of the code...
Thank you for reporting this issue. While we agree this is likely an improvement, we do not anticipate addressing this any time soon due to other issues demanding precedence. As such, this ticket will be closed as “Won’t Do”. We may revisit this at a later time, and if so, will re-open this ticket.
If you are interested in submitting a patch to implement this issue, please open a pull request and re-open this ticket.
Is there a facter v5 wishlist I could add this onto?
Use Case
The
processors.models
fact can grow very large on systems with high core count, but low physical count. Since the model name is determined by the physical count, trimming this down to match the physical chips would reduce the sice of the fact list and avoid some confusion.Describe the Solution You Would Like
Find the model name based on the physical chip used rather than just blindly for each core.
Describe Alternatives You've Considered
Filtering the fact out to reduce network burden.
Additional Context
I'm not sure if a
set
would be sufficient as you can infer if all the model names are identical than you have model count equal to physical count, but you wouldn't be able to directly count the number of different chips which would be handy.