32bit vs 64bit Linux

[Paul Mooring]

Is there really any 32 bit only software that people still use?  I don't think I've needed 32-bit libraries in years.

Paul Mooring
Operations Engineer
www.opscode.com

________________________________________
From: plug-discuss-bounces at lists.phxlinux.org on behalf of kitepilot at kitepilot.com
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 10:44 AM
To: nathan at nmecs.com; Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: 32bit vs 64bit Linux

Yes, you can get 'pure 64' systems (think Red Hat).
And you can 'fix them' by installing the hybrid 32-bit libraries, but I'd
rather stay away from it.
ET


Nathan England writes:

>
>
>
>
> I'll expand *your* question!
>
> Are there any *pure* 64-bit OS options out there? Beyond a linux from scratch
> build, which I have currently that is still pure 64-bit, what is there?
> every distro I know of has 32-bit libraries band-aided on to make some 32-bit that
> refuses to die run.
>
> Nathan
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 13:32:55 kitepilot at kitepilot.com wrote:
>> 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 at lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> --
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Nathan England
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> NME Computer Services http://www.nmecs.com
> Nathan England (nathan at nmecs.com)
> Systems Administration / Web Application Development
> Information Security Consulting
> (480) 559.9681
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss