[going OT] Re: 64Bit installation on a 500 GB Sata DRIVE

Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
thveillon.debian wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
But unless you have a specific need to use stick to 32bit kernel
(driver, old application [in]compatibility), it is wise to move to
64bits.
Why?

I know that 64bit is the future. I have the feeling, however, that many
applications are still better supported on 32bit than on 64bit. This
applies especially for multimedia, web pages and viewing certain
restricted pdfs, but I have often regretted the decision to move one of
my workstations to 64bit, just because it adds more hassle than it gains
in performance.

Of course this is just my humble opinion. It may work for others.

So, again: What is the advantage of running 64bit that warrants the
extra hassle?

Cheers,
Johannes


Hi,

I have all the systems I use/admin in 64bits (amd64), it's mainly Debian
and Ubuntu, I don't feel any "hassle" anymore. It used to be a problem
for a few web pluggins and a few semi-deprecated programs, but not
anymore. Most systems are multimedia workstations, everything works very
well, including flash (native 64bits), Java (native 64bits), all
possible codecs (w64codecs and more), Mplayer, Xine, Blender...

I'm glad it works for you. I maintain that there are some sites and some
plugins that won't work correctly on amd64, while they work fine on x86.

Last time I tried virtualbox, would not start that proprietary OS on
amd64, either.


I have Sun/Oracle VirtualBox amd64 (the proprietary one) running both XP
and Win7-rc, XP vm are 32bits, Win7 is 64bit, no problem here (Debian
Squeeze amd64).

Regarding performances, it's sometimes just the same, often much faster,
never slower, so no reason to look back to i386 for me. There's many
comparison floating around, especially on www.phoronix.com, you can have
a look at this Ubuntu vs Fedora roundup
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_810_vs_fedora_10&num=4

Are you sure, that the x86 tests were carried out with the amd64-kernel
for x86? I am sure that 686-kernels will be outperformed by
amd64-kernels. My golden compromise between performance and usability is
a amd64 kernel with 32-bit userland.

If it's really the amd64-kernel on x86 that's outperformed, I'd start to
reconsider...

I am pretty sure it's 64bits kernel and libs, it would be really
interesting to see the phoronix test tool (it's free, opensource, and
gratis) results on such a setting, if you have spare time and/or a test
machine...

http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=downloads

phoronix ran test on Ubuntu vs Mac os, both x86 and x86_64 Ubuntu (the
later being a bit better, but still lagging behind the Mac). Which is
interesting is that they say Mac OS kernel is 32bits, but with support
for 64bits apps, which sounded strange to me:
"With the OS X kernel currently being 32-bit but with support for 64-bit
applications,[...]"

source :
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_osx_64bit&num=1


I imagine the performance gain should be even more sensible with some
databases or intensive scientific number-crushing apps.

After the recent change of German copyright (Urheberrecht), libraries
started to send copy-protected pdf's that require a closed source
DRM-plugin, which is only available for i386. So, what you gain in speed
by improved number-crunching, might be lost by not being able to study
the scientific literature :-(

[Of course, I would prefer to read the literature without the need of
non-free software! ]

Cheers,
Johannes



Yep, it's strange to see that the so called "competition" in the
proprietary software market doesn't drive editors to keep up with
technical evolutions...
It might changes with MS pushing 64bits OS versions forward. For such
cases it's always possible to keep a 32bits vm, or a chroot.

Cheers,

Tom


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Relevant Pages

  • Re: USB 1.1 devs not working on ASUS K8VSE (x86) MB
    ... On Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:21:41 am Tom Uffner wrote: ... When running it as x86, USB 1.1 devices are not recognized by FreeBSD. ... They worked fine on the amd64 kernel built from the same code. ...
    (freebsd-current)
  • Re: Any MIDI / musicians here?
    ... That will contain the real-time kernel, plus pretty much all the software ... time MIDI, etc. ... Also, my OP related to one of my PCs that is AMD64, but my more ... now in anticipation of ubuntu studio as a solution, ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Freebsd build problem
    ... I'm unable to compile the kernel code (for that matter any kernel module ... My guess is that it is trying to compile the code for x86 instead of ... Please suggest the change to be done inorder to compile it for amd64. ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: 64 bit Ubuntu question
    ... *thought* was the AMD64 version of Ubuntu to an AMD64bit cpu system I ... 64bit as far as a kernel goes, ... ubuntu install that I thought was 64bit but in fact was not. ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Removal of GEOM_BSD, GEOM_MBR, GEOM_PC98 and GEOM_SUNLABEL (recap)
    ... Same with all attempts with any previous amd64 revision). ... first question: Where were those nice GEOM devices that so nicely showed up and held ALL of the above on my previous 7.2-STABLE? ... Tried by taking GEOM_PART out of the picture and kernel recompile. ... "I think it is less painful for folks upgrading from 7 to just use the old names. ...
    (freebsd-current)