Andy asked:
> - 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
> per-process compared to 32-bit.
Slower I don't know about, but it certainly uses more memory.
Even if I had a 2G RAM server, I'd still want a 32-bit system.
> 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?
Yes. It would, for example, hurt the ability to migrate to another
distribution or go back to the base server setup - people with not more
than 2G would get all the disadvantages without any of the benefit.
Is it so much harder to stick 64-bit systems on a few very memory-heavy
servers?
Ian
From andy@??? Tue May 29 04:28:37 2012
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1SZE2s-0004ry-Lx
for users@???; Tue, 29 May 2012 04:28:36 +0000
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 04:28:34 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: users@???
Message-ID: <20120529042832.GA3867@???>
References: <20120524131344.GS12360@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-ripemd160;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HdZAANC5GEQnh8Bp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120524131344.GS12360@???>
OpenPGP: id=BF15490B; url=http://strugglers.net/~andy/pubkey.asc
X-URL: http://strugglers.net/wiki/User:Andy
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Tue,
29 May 2012 04:28:35 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd3.lon.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=NO_RELAYS shortcircuit=no
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail.bitfolk.com)
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] Testing out apt-cacher-ng for Debian/Ubuntu package
caching
X-BeenThere: users@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@lists.bitfolk.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/list/users.html>
List-Post: <mailto:users@lists.bitfolk.com>
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: Tue, 29 May 2012 04:28:40 -0000
--HdZAANC5GEQnh8Bp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:13:44PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> I'm looking to replace it with apt-cacher-ng but I'd like to test it
> some more first.
Thanks for the testing help. "apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com" was
switched over to this about an hour ago.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
"I am the permanent milk monitor of all hobbies!" -- Simon Quinlank
--HdZAANC5GEQnh8Bp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: i
