itfolk.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 17:13:19 -0000
--de1H0RjRxOSdb4we
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 06:07:52PM +0100, Ian wrote:
> For the rest, <
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9297334/why-do-i-see-big-differences-i=
n-memory-usage-with-pmap-for-the-same-process-on-3>
> matches what I see on VMs here: 64 bit systems use much more memory.
It seems like even if I find some good benchmarks to do, or find
some good benchmarks to point to, there are still going to be people
who will argue against whatever conclusion the benchmarks come to
(or just completely ignore me).
Arguing with people who want to give me money has never worked that
well, and I would have to assume that they know their own usage
better, so it looks like it will just be easier to support both.
Probably will just default to 64-bit on everything and hide the
32-bit option away somewhere.
Cheers,
Andy
--=20
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
--de1H0RjRxOSdb4we
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)
iEYEAREDAAYFAk/Pj64ACgkQIJm2TL8VSQsUXwCfexmpYnWVL42bojd90HVhB8k5
byEAnjvn4BGAuI3j5Nsazw/ZAT/m/vq2
=1EMi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--de1H0RjRxOSdb4we--
From announce-bounces+users=lists.bitfolk.com@??? Tue Jun 12 14:52:20 2012
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bitfolk.com)
by mail.bitfolk.com with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from
<announce-bounces+users=lists.bitfolk.com@???>)
id 1SeSSC-00064h-IN
for users@???; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:52:20 +0000
Received: from andy by mail.bitfolk.com with local (Exim 4.72)
(envelope-from <andy@???>) id 1SeSS6-00063X-VV
for announce@???; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:52:15 +0000
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:52:14 +0000
From: Andy Smith <andy@???>
To: announce@???
Message-ID: <20120612145214.GV11695@???>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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,
12 Jun 2012 14:52:14 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
spamd1.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-BeenThere: announce@???
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0061280036=="
Sender: announce-bounces+users=lists.bitfolk.com@???
Errors-To: announce-bounces+users=lists.bitfolk.com@???
X-Virus-Scanner: Scanned by ClamAV on mail.bitfolk.com at Tue,
12 Jun 2012 14:52:20 +0000
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: announce-bounces+users=lists.bitfolk.com@???
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on mail.bitfolk.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Subject: [bitfolk] Xen Security Advisory CVE-2012-0217 - 64-bit PV guest
privilege escalation vulnerability
X-BeenThere: users@???
Reply-To: users@???
List-Id: Users of BitFolk hosting <users.lists.bitfolk.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists
