rs@???>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:18:48 -0000
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 02:43:47PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>=20
> As you may be aware, BitFolk currently doesn't support 64-bit
> guests. The reasons for this are:
>=20
> - 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
> per-process compared to 32-bit.
> - 99.04% of BitFolk customers have less than 2GiB addressable RAM.
> - Supporting only 32-bit or only 64-bit is a bit simpler.
>=20
> We do, however occasionally lose custom due to not supporting 64-bit
> guests.
>=20
> A future memory upgrade (not planned as to when) will obviously push
> more people into the space where >2G RAM per process would be
> beneficial, so I will consider switching to only 64-bit by that
> time. Will anyone be terribly upset to leave 32-bit behind?
>=20
> To clarify I am saying that after that point new installs would have
> to be 64-bit. Existing 32-bit installs would be unaffected.
>=20
> Also if you have a requirement for 64-bit it would be appreciated if
> you could vote for:
>=20
> https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/27
I've encountered an interesting reason for 64bit recently - apparently
go (
http://golang.org/) has problems with long running 32 bit server
processes that go away on 64bit.
Not that I have any code that actually qualifies.
Michael
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk/Dl1UACgkQyzbtqr+wCIi66wCfbQPiqnO24bBq/kWUjZdEVe23
LxMAn06G5Bz3gYxRf6mXMKHqNOohu31A
=pv+A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--
From danielcase10@??? Mon May 28 15:21:05 2012
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <danielcase10@???>)
id 1SZ1kn-0003Zu-6g
for users@???; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:21:05 +0000
Received: by wibhm6 with SMTP id hm6so1512549wib.3
for <users@???>; Mon, 28 May 2012 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=r
