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 business (as with success potentially comes
> more free upgrades), but for other suppliers I have dealt with who
> support both, I have been very particular that I wanted 32bit for the
> reasons we are discussing.
>
>> Even if I had a 2G RAM server, I'd still want a 32-bit system.
>
> +1. Unless you are in spitting distance of the 32bit limit, I would
> prefer to stick to 32bit.
>
>>> >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?
>
> Upset, a little; no where near jumping ship (as BitFolk has always
> exceeded expectations) but would prefer to keep the 32bit option (if
> possible). Is it not possible to boot a 32bit Dom1 kernel from a 64bit
> Dom0? Or is the overhead of maintaining the two sets of bootstraps?
>
> ~Mat
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users@???
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
From daniel.neri@??? Wed Jun 06 11:52:11 2012
Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176])
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_MD5:16)
(Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <daniel.neri@???>)
id 1ScEmW-0004K6-DB
for users@???; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:52:08 +0000
Received: by ghbz10 with SMTP id z10so5903587ghb.21
for <users@???>; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=/U/HI8yfNMpNU+EIysO0RZpnljkaC8esvEGothSheJM=;
b=cDuFaNhIjxT8Q96sQ/V4gopr6G9ejp3JU1ZfQbMLJQ4T41nc6r/9mWH1bfneWtiTQp
pNHD1XkYn8xg3zxumfQ+dBmCa1+XcWHv6frF5gGJMTK0zHSW8sJgw+W6tKT6D6X2TZqu
WJ+lasvl65NC7q0LOOHW3Cm4Hxy2djJbNVAPgV7y3FGa2o8iWHlhA/bU9QqkTX/mVasX
/XxeaqgHoJmS9DUI8W5t9gKZh9zrg0U4UhsHUGToyj7xNLF6J88yVwgnZmaZttP1NTHj
pzoLr4q5I8mOJ2YUym2ZVA6oApQcngic5dqIhTtTQXmtRJwsJG7W3Ui/XK/ZtesA6Z33
sBbA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.77.74 with SMTP id c50mr2821544yhe.112.1338983520534; Wed,
06 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: daniel.neri@???
Received: by 10.236.80.106 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 04:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
References: <20120528144346.GX3867@???>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 13:52:00 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MP
