Le mercredi 30 août 2006 13:32, Ron Johnson a écrit : > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 03:27:34AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:33:14PM -0300, Marcello Di Marino > >>> Azevedo wrote: > > [snip] > > > Correct on all counts. However, what is the point of having an > > amd64 CPU to then run an "inferior" kernel on it? I was not > > concerned with the question of compatibility, which you adressed, > > but rather which is the "best" kernel for that CPU. > > 32-bit Linux is not *inferior* to 64-bit Linux. It's *different*. > > OP did not tell us why they want to use a 32-bit kernel on an AMD64 > machine. Maybe it's because he or the PHB is nervous. Or, the > reason that *I* would choose to run a 32-bit kernel on an AMD64 > machine: there is some app that won't run *natively* in 64-bits > (closed-source or poorly-written) and they don't want to use chroots. A 64 bits kernel does not mean necessarily a 64 bits system. I run a i386 sarge system with a em64t smp kernel (64 bits) for a Xeon HT processor. You can run a k8-smp kernel with a 32 bits system. The benefit I see is that, although an application (32 bits process) can not use more than 4GB of memory, the kernel can. So you can have several process using a total of more than 4GB of RAM. If I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct me !
Attachment:
pgpL5JfypaB2e.pgp
Description: PGP signature