FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-16-2009, 07:04 PM
John Thomas
 
Default Desktop/Server 32/64 (was Silly question x64 vs i386)

> I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
> boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
> RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running
> x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am
> asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some
> opinions

If I may hijack, what about desktop machines? Would your 32/64 choice
be the same if it were primarily a desktop machine vs. primarily a
server? I recall a year or so ago the answer was 32 bit for desktops,
but perhaps that has changed.

--
Sincerely,
John Thomas
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-16-2009, 07:13 PM
"Scot P. Floess"
 
Default Desktop/Server 32/64 (was Silly question x64 vs i386)

All my machines - including my desktop - are 32 bit. This lone
x86_64 machine is a headless server (well I plug in a monitor from time to time) - but
usually its headless (as are all my machines but my desktop)...

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, John Thomas wrote:

>> I have one box on my home network that is x86_64 capable... My other
>> boxes are all i386. As this x86_64 machine can, at most, house 4 GB of
>> RAM (currently only has 1 GB) - is there any advantage to my running
>> x86_64 on that machine instead of i386... Long story as to why I am
>> asking - but before I go off and moveit down to i386 - just wanted some
>> opinions
>
> If I may hijack, what about desktop machines? Would your 32/64 choice
> be the same if it were primarily a desktop machine vs. primarily a
> server? I recall a year or so ago the answer was 32 bit for desktops,
> but perhaps that has changed.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> John Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

Scot P. Floess
27 Lake Royale
Louisburg, NC 27549

252-478-8087 (Home)
919-890-8117 (Work)

Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate
Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim

Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-16-2009, 07:41 PM
 
Default Desktop/Server 32/64 (was Silly question x64 vs i386)

>
> All my machines - including my desktop - are 32 bit. This lone
> x86_64 machine is a headless server (well I plug in a monitor from time to
> time) - but
> usually its headless (as are all my machines but my desktop)...
>

All of our servers have been 64bit since '04 or '05? Whenever the first
64bit multi-core AMD chips came out and were under $300.

For a server, the big reason to go 64bit is capacity. While you might be
running on a 2GB server today, it's quite possible that you'll move those
disks to a 8/16/32GB server next year. If you didn't go 64bit at the
start, you'd have to do the 32->64 move at the same time as hardware
migration.

(Just as a hypothetical "for instance" example. May not occur frequently
in real life.)

For desktop use, sounds like we're finally to the point where you can run
64bit Linux on the desktop and stay functional (i.e. Adobe Flash).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org