6 Jun
2012
6 Jun
'12
10:55 a.m.
- 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