I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
on most 64bit capable x86 CPUs, 64bit code is faster, because the x86_64 mode has more registers than the traditional i386. On the first gen Intel x86_64 CPUs, that would be P4's that had 64bit added to them, I'd probably stick with 32bit, but on any AMD or Intel Core CPU, I'd probably use x86_64 by default.
Its a Dell Pentium D - basically x86_64 but does not support hardware virtualization. Its a Dell Poweredge SC430 if that helps???
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, John R Pierce wrote:
Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
on most 64bit capable x86 CPUs, 64bit code is faster, because the x86_64 mode has more registers than the traditional i386. On the first gen Intel x86_64 CPUs, that would be P4's that had 64bit added to them, I'd probably stick with 32bit, but on any AMD or Intel Core CPU, I'd probably use x86_64 by default.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
Scot P. Floess wrote:
Its a Dell Pentium D - basically x86_64 but does not support hardware virtualization. Its a Dell Poweredge SC430 if that helps???
I believe those were a pair of the P4 "Prescott" chips in a single package, and pretty much what I said, 64bit works, but there's little point in it unless you have a need for the large memory.
Hey thats an interesting bit of trivia - thanks :) Large memory - bah - this silly machine maxes out at 4 GB...
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, John R Pierce wrote:
Scot P. Floess wrote:
Its a Dell Pentium D - basically x86_64 but does not support hardware virtualization. Its a Dell Poweredge SC430 if that helps???
I believe those were a pair of the P4 "Prescott" chips in a single package, and pretty much what I said, 64bit works, but there's little point in it unless you have a need for the large memory.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Really depends on what you are going to use it for, my own home system is 3GB and runs i386 mainly for software compatibility reasons, my co-located server runs i386 with 6GB ram mainly because VMware doesn't support 64-bit mode on the older Xeons I have, so not a big point for me to go 64-bit(and memory usage is quite low anyways).
Myself I make it a point when dealing with VMs at least to make them 32-bit unless they need a lot of memory, then I make them 64-bit. On any modern host I have they are all 64-bit, and typically have a minimum of 16-32GB of ram, so one would have to go to the nuthouse to run 32-bit on 16+GB of ram these days..my own cut off point, line in the sand for 32-64bit is 8GB. But certainly there are cases that you want 64-bit for even a system running 3GB(such as running a DB or VM process that uses a lot of memory).
I would say stick to whatever your using now if it works, if the rest of your network is i386 and that one box is i386, and you could move it to x86_64, I would leave it at i386 myself.
nate
so to be honest...what really spawned this... I put all my VMs on an NFS share. I've got an F11 VM I run...but on my x86_64 host - starting the F11 VM (its an i386 VM) fails to start. If I run F11 x86_64 it works fine. I' really just trying to simplify things and standards on one type of VM ;) Yes, I don't have any issues with CentOS guest VMs being i386 and running on the x86_64 host - works fine...
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, nate wrote:
Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Really depends on what you are going to use it for, my own home system is 3GB and runs i386 mainly for software compatibility reasons, my co-located server runs i386 with 6GB ram mainly because VMware doesn't support 64-bit mode on the older Xeons I have, so not a big point for me to go 64-bit(and memory usage is quite low anyways).
Myself I make it a point when dealing with VMs at least to make them 32-bit unless they need a lot of memory, then I make them 64-bit. On any modern host I have they are all 64-bit, and typically have a minimum of 16-32GB of ram, so one would have to go to the nuthouse to run 32-bit on 16+GB of ram these days..my own cut off point, line in the sand for 32-64bit is 8GB. But certainly there are cases that you want 64-bit for even a system running 3GB(such as running a DB or VM process that uses a lot of memory).
I would say stick to whatever your using now if it works, if the rest of your network is i386 and that one box is i386, and you could move it to x86_64, I would leave it at i386 myself.
nate
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
If I may hijack, what about desktop machines? Would your 32/64 choice be the same if it were primarily a desktop machine vs. primarily a server? I recall a year or so ago the answer was 32 bit for desktops, but perhaps that has changed.
All my machines - including my desktop - are 32 bit. This lone x86_64 machine is a headless server (well I plug in a monitor from time to time) - but usually its headless (as are all my machines but my desktop)...
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, John Thomas wrote:
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
If I may hijack, what about desktop machines? Would your 32/64 choice be the same if it were primarily a desktop machine vs. primarily a server? I recall a year or so ago the answer was 32 bit for desktops, but perhaps that has changed.
-- Sincerely, John Thomas _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
All my machines - including my desktop - are 32 bit. This lone x86_64 machine is a headless server (well I plug in a monitor from time to time) - but usually its headless (as are all my machines but my desktop)...
All of our servers have been 64bit since '04 or '05? Whenever the first 64bit multi-core AMD chips came out and were under $300.
For a server, the big reason to go 64bit is capacity. While you might be running on a 2GB server today, it's quite possible that you'll move those disks to a 8/16/32GB server next year. If you didn't go 64bit at the start, you'd have to do the 32->64 move at the same time as hardware migration.
(Just as a hypothetical "for instance" example. May not occur frequently in real life.)
For desktop use, sounds like we're finally to the point where you can run 64bit Linux on the desktop and stay functional (i.e. Adobe Flash).
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: every single move, down at the machine/assembly level, can move twice as many bits as on a 32-bit system. That will show up as a very serious speed increase in your software.
mark "why you should *always* have an assembler course"
Ah good point... Wasn't thinking in those terms... Well clearly wasn't thinking at all ;)
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: every single move, down at the machine/assembly level, can move twice as many bits as on a 32-bit system. That will show up as a very serious speed increase in your software.
mark "why you should *always* have an assembler course"
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Longer answer: every single move, down at the machine/assembly level, can move twice as many bits as on a 32-bit system. That will show up as a very serious speed increase in your software.
actually, the pentiums have had a 64bit physical memory bus since the first 60Mhz version, and all L1/L2 cache <=> physical memory operations are 64bits. the CPUs have all optimized things like REP MOVSB to move by 64bit chunks whenever possible.
The main performance advantage of x86_64 vs i686 is in the additional general purpose registers, this allows the compiler (or assembler programmer) to minimize the number of load/store instructions to implement a given sequence of operations.
At Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:53:01 -0500 (EST) CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
With only 1gig of RAM there is little reason for 64-bit addressing -- 1 gig is well within the range of 32-bit addressing (yes, you could set up a large swap partition and have lots of virtual addressing, but swapping like 8 gig of VM in and out of 1 gig of physical RAM would be painful).
Also, 64-bit apps tend to be a little larger then their 32-bit versions (fatter pointers, integers, etc.). With 1 gig memory will be a wee bit tighter (modern 64-bit machines would normally have lots more RAM...).
With what is obvious and 'older' 64-bit system, being limited to 4gig of RAM (which is still just within 32-bit address space), going 64-bit with this system would not buy you much. If you want a consistent operating environment, especially if you don't want to maintain two separate sets of updates, keeping all of your boxes at 32-bit for the time being probably makes sense. If and when you upgrade things, going 64-bit might make sense.
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 14:53 -0500, Scot P. Floess wrote:
is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386...
A better question might be, do you have any particular reason not to run x86_64 on that machine?
All of my machines and the machines that I look after are now running Centos x86_64, with the exception of one LTSP server and my Acer Aspire One laptop. The Acer netbook can't, of course, and the LTSP server runs dosemu which is much slower on x86_64.
I just set up a new telephone answering system the other day and now it's x86_64 too. Not for any particular reason, but why not? The hardware can handle it and I see no reason not to.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Scot P. Floess sfloess@nc.rr.com wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
The number of bits of the OS is insignificant when considering disk IO.
I'd use the best disk controller (where best is determined by measurement) and slap into the machine with the most CPU's and make sure it has sufficient memory.
In the end, if your disks suck, so will your IO regardless of what you do.
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have a really silly question... but just want to ask...
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some opinions :)
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Personally, if you had asked this 3 years ago, I'd have said "Go i686" due to compatibility. But now-a-days with up-to-date distributions there isn't many packages that aren't for x86_64. Heck even flash finally got a x86_64 Linux version now :-D (Took them long enough though!)
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64 OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
And usually, when you *do* need a i686 package it's usually possible to install the i686 versions of the packages (depending on the repo of course) where a command such as:
yum install httpd.i686 (or .i386 again depending on repo)
would come in handy :-) and then you have the i686 version, though there not always stable like that :-|
x86_64 has matured over the years and it's done it well :-)
But then, personally, I'd say, keep the current OS, unless there is actually something that makes you actually need x86_64. As they say "If it ain't broke, Don't fix it".
Though if you build/acquire a new x86_64 box, throw a x86_64 OS on it :-) But still, check make sure they are x86_64 binarys available. or sources that will compile on x86_64. In most cases, it will.
Oh, and there's no such thing as a silly question ;-)
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable...
Personally, if you had asked this 3 years ago, I'd have said "Go i686" due to compatibility. But now-a-days with up-to-date distributions there isn't many packages that aren't for x86_64. Heck even flash finally got a x86_64 Linux version now :-D (Took them long enough though!)
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64 OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Best, :-) Marko
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 23:37 +0000, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a
x86_64
OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Actually, my contribution to your "list" would be acroread. The free pdf readers still aren't up to the task in some cases, sadly.
Interesting that it's the closed-source stuff that's holding back progress. Skype, acroread, flash (up to a few months ago)...
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Frank Cox theatre@sasktel.net wrote:
I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Actually, my contribution to your "list" would be acroread. The free pdf readers still aren't up to the task in some cases, sadly.
Interesting that it's the closed-source stuff that's holding back progress. Skype, acroread, flash (up to a few months ago)...
google gears!
System requirements
* Linux (details) * Firefox 1.5+ * 32-bit OS (64-bit not supported)
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 19:53, Scot P. Floess wrote:
I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable...
Personally, if you had asked this 3 years ago, I'd have said "Go i686" due to compatibility. But now-a-days with up-to-date distributions there isn't many packages that aren't for x86_64. Heck even flash finally got a x86_64 Linux version now :-D (Took them long enough though!)
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64 OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
Best, :-) Marko
I knew someone would find something that isn't 64-bit, in fact, I was waiting for it. :-p
But, after a quick Google search, it's possible to run Skype on x86_64. ;) just install the i686 libs, job done (apparently) :-)
Same way as any OpenSim/Secondlife viewer is installed :-)
Not the most ideal way to run programs on 64, but it works :-)
Though I personally don't "need" or "use" Skype ;-)
*waits for someone else to go list a bunch of anti-64 packages*
PS: Seemingly, Your "Reply-To" makes my email client want to reply to you only (Which I put back to CentOS instead) may cause others to also. Just letting you know :-)
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 23:51:43 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64 OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
I knew someone would find something that isn't 64-bit, in fact, I was waiting for it. :-p
But, after a quick Google search, it's possible to run Skype on x86_64. ;) just install the i686 libs,
Yes, 86 of them, or so... (count is from Fedora 12, don't have CentOS handy here atm.) They seem to be the only thing that pollutes my nice&clean 64bit environment. ;-)
job done (apparently) :-)
Sure, that's how I have it running now. :-)
PS: Seemingly, Your "Reply-To" makes my email client want to reply to you only (Which I put back to CentOS instead) may cause others to also. Just letting you know :-)
Well, I usually send mail from one mail account and receive it on another, so I have set Reply-To header accordingly. Don't know how different clients behave when replying, though, but I didn't have any problems so far. :-)
Best, :-) Marko
I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;)
Works very nicely......
2009/12/17 Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 23:51:43 Jake Shipton wrote:
On 16/12/09 23:37, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 21:52:05 Jake Shipton wrote:
Any machine I have that can run in x86_64, I normally install a x86_64 OS, and recently, I haven't found anything I need that is only i686.
Skype?
I knew someone would find something that isn't 64-bit, in fact, I was waiting for it. :-p
But, after a quick Google search, it's possible to run Skype on x86_64. ;) just install the i686 libs,
Yes, 86 of them, or so... (count is from Fedora 12, don't have CentOS handy here atm.) They seem to be the only thing that pollutes my nice&clean 64bit environment. ;-)
job done (apparently) :-)
Sure, that's how I have it running now. :-)
PS: Seemingly, Your "Reply-To" makes my email client want to reply to you only (Which I put back to CentOS instead) may cause others to also. Just letting you know :-)
Well, I usually send mail from one mail account and receive it on another, so I have set Reply-To header accordingly. Don't know how different clients behave when replying, though, but I didn't have any problems so far. :-)
Best, :-) Marko
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
James Hogarth wrote:
I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;)
Works very nicely......
Google is focusing on HTML5 these days anyway. They're maintaining Gears for those sites who currently utilize it but I'd imagine it will fade away.
- Ryan
Just after getting storage into the webapp.... kinda funny really....
When we started working with the tech HTML5 storage wasn't really viable...
It's an internal only app though so as long as I can get gears on 64bit firefox 3.5 and safari on mac it's fine till the relevant code is tested working on HTML5 ported code (safari/firefox)....
Plenty of time to do that ;)
2009/12/17 Ryan Pugatch rpug@linux.com
James Hogarth wrote:
I have google gears installed on our 64bit firefoxes on firefox 3.5.5 in centos 5.4 with flash 10 - all from rpm ;)
Works very nicely......
Google is focusing on HTML5 these days anyway. They're maintaining Gears for those sites who currently utilize it but I'd imagine it will fade away.
- Ryan
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Agile Aspect -
Dave -
Frank Cox -
Jake Shipton -
James Hogarth -
John R Pierce -
John Thomas -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Marko Vojinovic -
nate -
Robert Heller -
Ryan Pugatch -
Scot P. Floess -
thomas-lists＠nybeta.com