Re: Tracking sarge
Le vendredi 04 février 2005 à 10:01 -0500, Kurt Yoder a écrit :
> <snipped>
>
> > > I did this last week and ran into trouble. I could no longer use the
> > > iptables binary, though the module was loading fine. I also was
> unable
> > > to install new kernels because something about the initrd installer
> > > didn't like the new 64-bit kernel.
> >
> > The iptables problems is known. You need a 64bit iptables.
>
> Do you know where this is? I tried compiling from source, but still get
> the error. I assume it's because I'm still compiling using 32-bit
> libraries.
Yes, maybe the amd64-libs-lev package is what you need?
Let me know if you do it and succeed.
[..]
> > It is possible with some glitches, like iptables or alsa not having a
> > 32->64 bit translatio layer.
>
> I'm ok with alsa not working. Are there any other glitches that might
> affect using this on a production server?
I'm running only one Pure64 server (Apache 2.0, Glasnost,
SpamAssassin, ...), without any problem.
It is running only free software, though.
> I guess what I really want to know is: what is the best way to get the
> 64-bit performance advantages out of my hardware? I don't want glitches
> with the software I'm running, such as Apache2, mod-perl, mysql,
> postgres, and postfix. I would be OK with my currrent setup (32-bit
> userland, 64-bit kernel), but it seems like there are reliability issues
> doing this. Are these all taken care of by moving to 64-bit userland?
> Are there any arguments *against* moving to 64-bit userland?
Running proprietary software (user-land) not available for amd64, though
it may be circumvented with the chroot technique.
I manage another 3 Opteron boxes where I had to stay 32-bits because of
a hardware lock with only available proprietary kernel module.
There are some Java programs running on those too, and I felt not
confident about running them on Pure64, and was in a hurry so could not
test before-hand.
Last but not least, I manage also one dual-Opteron box with Sarge x86 on
a 64-bits kernel because of Java again.
> Thanks for your answers so far
Reply to: