Well, if you are going to run a database that wants to hold everything in memory, then, yes 64 bits (and far more RAM than most of us have).
For the rest, < http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9297334/why-do-i-see-big-differences-in-memory-usage-with-pmap-for-the-same-process-on-3> matches what I see on VMs here: 64 bit systems use much more memory.
Ian, on a phone, so sorry for the quoting
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-limitations
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@cyberfish.org> wrote:
>>- 64-bit is alleged to be a little slower and use more memory
>> 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@lists.bitfolk.com
> https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.bitfolk.com
https://lists.bitfolk.com/mailman/listinfo/users