18 Nov
2015
18 Nov
'15
11:36 a.m.
Chris Dennis <cgdennis(a)btinternet.com> said, in message
564C56EB.1010207(a)btinternet.com:
And the first question is: Should I, in 2015, go for 64 bits or 32
bits?
* The BitFolk rescue environment supports 64 bits now.
* Addressing 1GB of RAM is not an issue.
* Will a 64-bit system run faster? Or slower?
* Will 64-bit executables waste precious disk space?
For a long time, running 64-bit systems involved various hacks and
workarounds and 32-bit libraries for software that was not yet
compiled for 64 bits. Is the opposite happening yet? -- i.e. is it
becoming necessary to allow for software that no longer supports 32
bits?
I always go 64 bit where possible, these days. A couple of years back I ran
into problems on some machines at work, where the 64 bit kernel was fine and
the 32 bit one, with the same nominal config, was subject to random crashes.
Since I couldn't see any userland reason not to migrate, we moved all our
servers over.
It's probably not such an issue if you're using the Debian-supported 32 bit
kernel, but I do get the impression that 64 bit kernels on x86 might be
subject to better testing than 32 bit these days.
Cheers,
Alun.
--
Alun Jones, auj(a)aber.ac.uk, 01970 622637
Mathemateg, Ffiseg a Chyfrifiadureg, Prifysgol Aberystwyth
Mathematics, Physics & Computer Science, Aberystwyth University