7 2012
Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com ([209.85.214.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ewan@???>)
id 1ScEE7-0002yy-Dl
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:16:36 +0000
Received: by obbef5 with SMTP id ef5so14728292obb.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=nutmegdata.co.uk; s=google;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=N6Ep6HVZLQZTwqz3gIVIkq7MAdukvUBg+S2rUQlJ9LM=;
b=Ur2ti8gz1WHLokJ0HskjQjzEgAtjQyR3HN3V3c2JSTZxswnZotmYCuIzA+xsvvrQ80
Ra6+TwzC6KCyxbIvLn6057Rh3SOdoyw+8E7Njo7fFFIquKVBVC/y4joS2S/XSf8IKEOO
73Ds8fle5+3kDGDrkfHeO/iIPy3fAAQXc/DI8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=google.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
:x-gm-message-state;
bh=N6Ep6HVZLQZTwqz3gIVIkq7MAdukvUBg+S2rUQlJ9LM=;
b=XpklH0rdVaND7gNzeH9vJGbnMfyRtfW8AQ5Xo98Rul/MxYnjk/7SJxffzgSHmqjmWY
Qc30vZcSNc1cebcwy7EdPxZWPjvUJX19c1NTeBPRKnN7P+mPohXVoSyEpHU/BKTglLi1
QBbhJytgCX783sY0hRNXtiQaMBQHoUNNZK3Dsr5HxzxkOHEF4n6izmzMtId/PIr71PJn
jFDaEgfz1K0yvCEO7BlNoxn71blXWjT6yJ9+h/f5vudLgJbGzo3rMmo960LjgOc4xZlB
WyPyo3k6479vKzj0KK8GDanHpQzSuUmkmSYzGg9nV29A9WF134B+vHzBAOF+Y2kRzddg
U/Vg==
Received: by 10.182.8.99 with SMTP id q3mr19723570oba.63.1338981384438; Wed,
06 Jun 2012 04:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.12.68 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:16:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [62.24.245.197]
In-Reply-To: <CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
<4FC3C56E.7030302@???>
<20120604083741.GB24956@???>
<CAHORQ3cwda6GaKCTsEXOgR4meYbzNaAwU1aAnqJzBVGa3s+nmQ@???>
From: Ewan Leith <ewan@???>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 12:16:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOOtku86o8buDXHpHYsYcYQrP5cm5Z3dm2tT5nOQfXQXT7JgEg@???>
To: users@???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnKix8JygzGAsER62b0MRd0RCUG+7gaHG6tuA3jsPDrgwPoHbZdZhH7J1ULd/kkMIVlYEQ
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Wed,
06 Jun 2012 11:16:35 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 209.85.214.176
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ewan@???
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
admin.kwak.bitfolk.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at
http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust
* [209.85.214.176 listed in list.dnswl.org]
* -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's * domain
* -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
* 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
* valid
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] 64-bit support
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:16:38 -0000
I think the memory consumption and performance differences between
32-bit and 64-bit are slightly overblown - the reality as far as my
experience shows is that you won't notice the difference.
In many situations, an OS compiled for 64-bit can be quicker than the
32-bit version, as it can make use of the extra (and larger) registers
and so on that the 64-bit CPUs have.
Personally I'm in favour of going 64-bit, there's quite a few programs
which are now developed as "64-bit first" applications, where 32-bit
is becoming a bit of a legacy issue, to be updated later.
A couple of examples:
MongoDB - database sizes are limited to 2GB
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/faq/fundamentals/#what-are-the-32-bit-limita=
tions
The "go" programming language
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/golang-nuts/qxlxu5RZAl0
I've had some of the issues with go - it didn't bother me too much
since I was just experimenting, but these things will come up more
often.
Ewan
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Mat Johns <mat@???> wrote:
>>- 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
>> =A0 per-process compared to 32-bit.
>
> +1. I would have presumed that a large chunk of BitFolk's customer
> base are hobbyist's, developers and small businesses who are at the
> lower end of the RAM range. Admittedly we shouldn't make it too hard
> for Andy to drum up new busine
