Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold? Nice plans to add more ram.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
Thanks in advance.
D
On Mar 2, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Dnk d.k.emaillists@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold? Nice plans to add more ram.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
Thanks in advance.
These days I'd do all servers and development boxes 64-bit and only deploy 32-bit for end-user workstations.
The VM management and file system management advantages are real no matter how much memory you have and the 32-bit support is perfect so there is no need to go 32-bit at all.
-Ross
On 2-Mar-09, at 8:17 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
These days I'd do all servers and development boxes 64-bit and only deploy 32-bit for end-user workstations.
The VM management and file system management advantages are real no matter how much memory you have and the 32-bit support is perfect so there is no need to go 32-bit at all.
-Ross
Just for clarification, What do you mean by "32-bit support is perfect"?
d
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 AM, dnk d.k.emaillists@gmail.com wrote:
On 2-Mar-09, at 8:17 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
These days I'd do all servers and development boxes 64-bit and only deploy 32-bit for end-user workstations.
The VM management and file system management advantages are real no matter how much memory you have and the 32-bit support is perfect so there is no need to go 32-bit at all.
Just for clarification, What do you mean by "32-bit support is perfect"?
What I mean is the 32-bit compatibility libraries and support for 32-bit executables works so well I have yet to find a 32-bit application that doesn't work as good on 64-bit CentOS as it does on 32-bit CentOS, if the need should ever arise that is, cause most enterprise vendors ship 64-bit versions of their wares these days.
-Ross
At Mon, 2 Mar 2009 08:26:46 -0800 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On 2-Mar-09, at 8:17 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
These days I'd do all servers and development boxes 64-bit and only deploy 32-bit for end-user workstations.
The VM management and file system management advantages are real no matter how much memory you have and the 32-bit support is perfect so there is no need to go 32-bit at all.
-Ross
Just for clarification, What do you mean by "32-bit support is perfect"?
All of the x86 flavor 64-bit processors (IA64 and x86_64) will run 32-bit x86 applications. CentOS (RHEL) comes with a complete set of 32-bit libraries.
d
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
All of the x86 flavor 64-bit processors (IA64 and x86_64) will run 32-bit x86 applications. CentOS (RHEL) comes with a complete set of 32-bit libraries.
not to be pedantic or anything, but IA64 refers to Intel Itanium, which isn't really x86 flavor at all, and runs 32bit x86 poorly at best. both AMD's am64 (opteron, athlon 64, etc) and Intel's em64t (core duo, late model Xeon, etc) are considered x86_64 architecture.
On 2-Mar-09, at 9:15 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
Just for clarification, What do you mean by "32-bit support is perfect"?
All of the x86 flavor 64-bit processors (IA64 and x86_64) will run 32-bit x86 applications. CentOS (RHEL) comes with a complete set of 32-bit libraries.
Thanks guys... I figured that would be the case.
Much appreciated.
d
Dnk wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold?
Yes, unless you're not turning on swap. Once you add swap to a system with 4 GB of RAM, you need either PAE or 64-bit to actually use the swap. Since 64-bit CPUs became cheap last year, there's no longer a good reason to use PAE on a new system, so that means 64-bit.
You can make much the same argument farther down the line....even with 2 GB RAM and 2 GB swap, 64-bit might be the right configuration choice.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
I doubt you'll actually use all that RAM, 64-bit or not.
An rsync-only box should be completely I/O bound. If it were a choice between more RAM and either another disk spindle or a hardware RAID card, I'd choose the better disk setup, here. I assume you will have a gigabit Ethernet link...the trick then is to saturate it, which you can't do with a single disk, no matter how much RAM you've got, or how much 64-bitness you throw at it. Fail to saturate the network link, and you're slowing your backups.
If the rsync box is on the other side of a slow network link, I'd still go for a better disk setup over more RAM. In that particular case, I'd be looking at things like hot spares, because it means you're probably not always near the server to swap disks when they fail.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
Dnk wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold?
Yes, unless you're not turning on swap. Once you add swap to a system with 4 GB of RAM, you need either PAE or 64-bit to actually use the swap. Since 64-bit CPUs became cheap last year, there's no longer a good reason to use PAE on a new system, so that means 64-bit.
You can make much the same argument farther down the line....even with 2 GB RAM and 2 GB swap, 64-bit might be the right configuration choice.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
I doubt you'll actually use all that RAM, 64-bit or not.
An rsync-only box should be completely I/O bound. If it were a choice between more RAM and either another disk spindle or a hardware RAID card, I'd choose the better disk setup, here. I assume you will have a gigabit Ethernet link...the trick then is to saturate it, which you can't do with a single disk, no matter how much RAM you've got, or how much 64-bitness you throw at it. Fail to saturate the network link, and you're slowing your backups.
If the rsync box is on the other side of a slow network link, I'd still go for a better disk setup over more RAM. In that particular case, I'd be looking at things like hot spares, because it means you're probably not always near the server to swap disks when they fail.
You can definitely use the 2GB+ on an I/O bound box for disk caching!
A lot of people underestimate the performance benefit of page cached backed I/O when building out storage boxes.
-Ross
On 2-Mar-09, at 9:37 AM, Warren Young wrote:
Dnk wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold?
Yes, unless you're not turning on swap. Once you add swap to a system with 4 GB of RAM, you need either PAE or 64-bit to actually use the swap. Since 64-bit CPUs became cheap last year, there's no longer a good reason to use PAE on a new system, so that means 64-bit.
You can make much the same argument farther down the line....even with 2 GB RAM and 2 GB swap, 64-bit might be the right configuration choice.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
I doubt you'll actually use all that RAM, 64-bit or not.
An rsync-only box should be completely I/O bound. If it were a choice between more RAM and either another disk spindle or a hardware RAID card, I'd choose the better disk setup, here. I assume you will have a gigabit Ethernet link...the trick then is to saturate it, which you can't do with a single disk, no matter how much RAM you've got, or how much 64-bitness you throw at it. Fail to saturate the network link, and you're slowing your backups.
If the rsync box is on the other side of a slow network link, I'd still go for a better disk setup over more RAM. In that particular case, I'd be looking at things like hot spares, because it means you're probably not always near the server to swap disks when they fail.
This machine has a pretty good IO setup. The Ram was just in it from the last task the machine had.
d
Dnk wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold? Nice plans to add more ram.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
For a server type of thing, 64 bit is usually perfect.
32 bit is sometimes a better deal on desktops, but even there the situation is changing. Maybe this year I'll use 64 bit on my desktop(s) for the first time, as it seems most of the lingering problems are being solved, finally.
there still doesnt seem to be a 64bit java plugin
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Florin Andrei florin@andrei.myip.orgwrote:
Dnk wrote:
Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb ram threshhold? Nice plans to add more ram.
The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync).
For a server type of thing, 64 bit is usually perfect.
32 bit is sometimes a better deal on desktops, but even there the situation is changing. Maybe this year I'll use 64 bit on my desktop(s) for the first time, as it seems most of the lingering problems are being solved, finally.
-- Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Paul Hussein wrote:
there still doesnt seem to be a 64bit java plugin
You can use the 32bit plugin if you change the launcher script to launch the 32 bit version of firefox instead of the 64 bit version.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org mailto:florin@andrei.myip.org> wrote:
Dnk wrote: > Is there any real advantage to using 64 bit when I am right at the 4gb > ram threshhold? Nice plans to add more ram. > > The machine will just be a backup machie (rsync). For a server type of thing, 64 bit is usually perfect. 32 bit is sometimes a better deal on desktops, but even there the situation is changing. Maybe this year I'll use 64 bit on my desktop(s) for the first time, as it seems most of the lingering problems are being solved, finally.
Am 03.03.2009 um 23:57 schrieb Jerry Franz:
Paul Hussein wrote:
there still doesnt seem to be a 64bit java plugin
You can use the 32bit plugin if you change the launcher script to launch the 32 bit version of firefox instead of the 64 bit version.
Or konqueror, which somehow uses the java-binary to run applets.
But I must admit, I rarely need it. But if you do a lot of work with blade-systems and their various remote-management facilities, one might want to have a stable java environment...
Rainer
On 3-Mar-09, at 3:01 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
Am 03.03.2009 um 23:57 schrieb Jerry Franz:
Paul Hussein wrote:
there still doesnt seem to be a 64bit java plugin
You can use the 32bit plugin if you change the launcher script to launch the 32 bit version of firefox instead of the 64 bit version.
Or konqueror, which somehow uses the java-binary to run applets.
But I must admit, I rarely need it. But if you do a lot of work with blade-systems and their various remote-management facilities, one might want to have a stable java environment...
Well in context to why I asked my original question, it was more for servers with no browser/X running.... So in my case, kind of a moot point.
=-)
d
-
Dnk -
Florin Andrei -
German Andres Pulido -
Jerry Franz -
John R Pierce -
Paul Hussein -
Rainer Duffner -
Robert Heller -
Ross Walker -
Warren Young