[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[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


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

source :

>> 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.



Reply to: