przemolicc at poczta.fm wrote: > However, to continune this discussion, could you please explain why did you > switch to 64-bit environment ? > If you have databases and want to use buffer cache bigger then 4GB it is > clear for me. In other words For myself I did not switch off, I still deploy 32-bit systems all the time, all in VMs, of the 354 linux systems I have inventoried that are running 264 them are 64-bit, the vast majority of which have at least 8GB of ram. 52 of the 354 systems are 32-bit VMs (VMware ESX). About 100 of those 264 systems are on the verge of being retired entirely, replaced with newer more efficient hardware with 16GB or more of ram. I haven't deployed a 32-bit hardware system in some time though I also haven't deployed a new hardware system with less than 8 or 16GB of ram in some time either(can't remember the last time I did either one). It just doesn't make much sense to deploy a new 1GB or 2GB or even 4GB system in real hardware these days, put it in a VM. Of all my VMs, I have just 14 that are 64-bit(out of 66). Just be sure to test out your apps, at my last company we tried to deploy 64-bit on our web servers but the Ruby on Rails apps just slowed to a crawl and chewed up a TON more memory than 32-bit, got less than half the performance on the same hardware(HP DL380G5). Java of course is probably the best in 64-bit. Fortunately my current job is almost entirely java which is orders of magnitude easier for me to manage than ruby on rails. Unlike it seems everyone else on the list I still see a lot of value memory wise in 32-bit systems, many applications don't require much memory, and I like my systems as efficient as they can be. nate