Well, I'll expand the question...
Performance and memory access considerations aside, the reason why I have
always 'gone 32' is because applications availability. Back when, flash was
the limiting factor because it was a PAIN to run it in 64 bits (if at all
possible).
And some other things...
For years, I've been lazily sticking to 32 bits to avoid potentially
problematic issues. Now, if that landscape has changed, and
application-wise 32 and 64 bits are irrelevant, I'd certainly like to
convert to 64.
Question is (again, performance and memory access considerations aside):
What are the potential problems of running on a pure 64 environment for as
long as you stick to apt-get (or yum)?
ET
keith smith writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> Even though I have 64bit hardware I always install the 32bit version of Linux. I do so because of the past discussions on this list that made me believe the 32bit OS was better because 64bit caching is actually slower due to the requirement that the cache be filled to a certain point before it is moved. I think I recall something about the amount of RAM having some effect here also.
>
> Using a 32bit version over a 64bit version seems counter intuitive, however that is what I have taken away from these conversations about 32bit vs 64bit Linux.
>
> I'm using CentOS 6.x on a LAMP server that gets a low amount of traffic. However I may make the jump to Linux on my desktop this summer. (this will be my 3rd attempt to become M$ free except one VM so I can use IE for testing) I think all of my hardware is 64bit.
>
> So that begs the question, is 32bit better than 64bit or do I not understand the issue?
>
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> Keith
>
> ------------------------
>
> Keith Smith
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)