On 8/31/2010 11:04 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>> Stack size was only a problem for the 32 bit OS and not 64 bit. If one
>> is dealing with a terabyte or more of data, I don't see them using a 32 bit
>> OS.
>
> Huh;
>
> /dev/mapper/Raid5-Media
> 3.3T 3.1T 216G 94% /Media
>
> % uname -sr
> Linux 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5PAE
>
>> I really don't see any really good reasons for using anything but 64 bit
>> any more, if the hardware supports it.
>
> I don't find the RedHat 32bit/64bit split to be as clean as it should be
> (definitely messy when compared to Solaris). When it comes to needing to
> install 32bit and 64bit versions of the same program (eg perl 'cos you
> only have 32bit binary libraries from vendors) it gets a little hairy.
> And then Oracle really starts to get antsy on you.
>
> As a result, when I first installed CentOS 5 I stuck with 32bit because
> it was more stable. After all, my memory footprint is only around
> 200Mb on this machine; the rest is cache!
The kernel and user apps are pretty much different things. You can run
a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit apps if you want. But the issue with a
32-bit kernel besides what it can provide as a process address space is
that at least the way RH and CentOS build it, it uses 4k stacks which
may not be enough for some xfs operations.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com