Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Monday, September 27, 2010 - 8:57 pm

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Fritz Meissner wrote:

One advantage to 64-bit machines is that there are more
CPU registers available in 64-bit mode, so some processing
goes faster, and more addressable memory.

That may be reason enough to run a 64-bit kernel while
keeping a 32-bit userland (libraries, applications, etc.)
Which some (including myself) do.

The advantage of 32-bit software is a smaller
memory footprint (e.g. 32 bits to represent an
integer instead of 64). There is a much wider software
availability, and fewer compatibility issues.

Although many say "64-bit is well established, no need
to worry about compatibility", I've had a few run ins.
At one point, I was maintaining two parallel Debian systems,
one 32-bit and one 64-bit, to track down such issues.

Some disadvantages to mixed systems, from the amd64 faq
at http://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.htm...

Q: I want to run i386 userland with a 64bit Linux kernel

A: Running 32bit userland with a 64bit kernel is recommended
only for servers needing the absolute stability of 10 years
of 32bit debian, but without the memory limitations the IA32
architecture bears, for example a 64bit mysql server on a
system with 8GB or 16GB memory.

Running the mixed setup on a workstation is not recommended,
because iptables, the XFS filesystem, non-free NVidia and
ATI binary drivers do currently not support it.

Iptables *does* appear to work for me in mixed environment,
at least the user interface part.

Cheers,

Joel

> Fritz

--
Joel Roth
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Josh Lawrence, (Mon Sep 27, 8:26 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Jostein Chr. Andersen, (Tue Sep 28, 6:06 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, torbenh, (Tue Sep 28, 6:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Jostein Chr. Andersen, (Wed Sep 29, 6:11 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, allcoms, (Tue Sep 28, 11:53 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, david, (Tue Sep 28, 10:08 am)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Arnold Krille, (Mon Sep 27, 10:36 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Mon Sep 27, 9:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Michał, (Mon Sep 27, 8:46 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Josh Lawrence, (Mon Sep 27, 8:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Fritz Meissner, (Mon Sep 27, 8:30 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Joshua Boyd, (Tue Sep 28, 4:23 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, david, (Wed Sep 29, 5:55 am)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Joel Roth, (Mon Sep 27, 8:57 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Goran , (Mon Sep 27, 10:20 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Josh Lawrence, (Mon Sep 27, 9:19 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, david, (Tue Sep 28, 10:10 am)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Arve Barsnes, (Tue Sep 28, 2:29 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Paul Davis, (Tue Sep 28, 3:16 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Bernardo Barros, (Tue Sep 28, 3:58 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Charles Henry, (Mon Sep 27, 9:41 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Bernardo Barros, (Mon Sep 27, 9:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] OT: 64 vs 32 bit?, Josh Lawrence, (Mon Sep 27, 8:56 pm)