RE: RE: AMD64 port or not, which way to go?
Lennart Sorensen (28.2.2005 15:53):
>On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:42:00PM +0200, St?hlberg Mika wrote:
>> We are in process of building new LAMP server for, i quess, quite typical usage, so nothing fancy there.
>>
>> I've been browsing through AMD64 mailing list as well as some other Debian lists and info pages to find out is AMD64 port way to go or is it maybe Sarge intel x86 architecture. Or perhaps some other distro altogether but i do really want to use Debian :-) so let's leave that aside.
>>
>> Questions i've seeked answer's, and partially got them, are:
>>
>> - HW compatibility, server specs: Dell PowerEdge 2800, single Xeon 3.2GHz/1MB 800FSB, 2x 1GB ram, PERC 4/di raid controller, PV100T 36/72GB DAT 7, 2x 73 GB SCSI Ultra320 hd, ups
>
>Well certainly some of the PERC cards work. I have never worked with
>them personally.
>
>> - Pros and cons using AMD64 port (for production server)
>
>Pro: applications can have more than 2GB memory each (although given you
>only have 2GB that isn't very interesting)
>Con: xeon's apparently run a bit slower in EM64T mode than in native
>32bit mode.
What about Sarge with 2.6. em64t-p4 kernel without HyperThreading compared to Sarge with 2.6. em64t-p4 smp kernel with HyperThreading?
>Con: 64bit port isn't done and won't be officially released with sarge.
>
>> - Pros and cons using Sarge (on our present server we are using Woody, with few backported packages)
>
>Woody is a pain to install on modern hardware while sarge is rather
>easy.
>Sarge is _hopefully_ releasing soon, in which case you won't have as big
>an upgrade to go to the new stable as you would going from woody to
>sarge later.
>Sarge doesn't yet have security updates, although security fixes tend to
>make it in rather quickly anyhow.
>
>> Quite broad scope, i know but any comments, experiences or thoughts around these questions would be very well appreciated!
>
>Len Sorensen
>
>
Mika Ståhlberg
Reply to: