On Friday, June 10, 2011 04:42:57 PM R P Herrold wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Kevin Stange wrote: > > CentOS 5: > > 93169 /centos/5.6/isos/i386/CentOS-5.6-i386-bin-DVD.iso > > 15284 /centos/5.5/isos/i386/CentOS-5.5-i386-bin-DVD.iso > > > > 4291 /centos/5.5/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.5-x86_64-bin-DVD-1of2.iso > > > > 748 /centos/5.6/isos/x86_64/CentOS-5.6-x86_64-bin-DVD-1of2.iso > > > > CentOS 4: > > 489 /centos/4/isos/i386/CentOS-4.8-i386-binDVD.iso > > > > 14 /centos/4.8/isos/x86_64/CentOS-4.8-x86_64-binDVD.iso > > Pretty telling that x86_64 is running so far behind i386 with > the older virtualization methods available (understanding that > this is not a random or statistically meaningful sample). > For dom0, under kvm, of course x86_64 is mandated, but I > suspect i386 will still dominate in downloads a year from now, > with 6 series added > > Thank you for this data I think that your typical i386 installing user is more likely to fetch an iso from a public mirror compared to x86_64 installing user, inflating the above data. In reality (number of installed hosts world wide) x86_64 is probably a lot closer to i386 than figures like those above indicate. /Peter (who stopped installing 32-bit CentOS in 2006) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-mirror/attachments/20110610/58ead645/attachment-0004.sig>