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 > Ubuntu > Ubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-24-2011, 01:59 PM
Ioannis Vranos
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

Yes, Ubuntu 32-bit comes with a PAE kernel.

However there is still a memory limitation on a per application basis.
As an example, I have VMware installed on my 32-bit Ubuntu 11.04
machine, which has 4 GB RAM, and VMware sees only 3.5 GB RAM.



--
Ioannis Vranos

http://www.cpp-software.net

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 10:06 PM
Ric Moore
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 09/24/2011 03:29 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:

On 24/09/11 17:08, Alan Pope wrote:


On 24 Sep 2011, at 06:29, Basil Chupin<blchupin@iinet.net.au> wrote:


(eg the 32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM
while the 64-bit version can handle quite a bit more).

That's not strictly true, and hasn't been for some time now. Ubuntu
32bit on machines with more than 4GB RAM can address that memory just
fine, so long as the chipset supports it. Most do.

Al.

Yep, but one doesn't go into minute details when giving a broad-based
answer :-) .

In another place a person asked a question which contained several
questions. Each question required someone writing a short essay as an
answer. My private response to that person was just this: search the
internet for the information - eg, the information re each question is
fully available on wikipedia - and then ask on the list for anything not
fully understood.


When I jammed my new motherboard with 6 AMD cpu's and 16 gigs of ram,
32bit Ubuntu ran just fine by merely plugging the harddrive back to the
new motherboard, with the correct kernel ...which I pre-loaded up in
advance. But, as soon as I got my DVD, I loaded 64 bit and it really
rolls better. So, as Basil noted, the "broad-based" answer is with a
64bit CPU, less-than 4 gigs of ram, go 32bit. 4 Gigs or better, go
64bit. Just as a rule-of-thumb mind you. YMMV, as always. Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-24-2011, 10:11 PM
Ric Moore
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 09/24/2011 04:35 AM, Koh Choon Lin wrote:

Hi


(eg the 32-bit version can only operate with a max of 4GB of RAM while the 64-bit version can handle quite a bit more).


That's not strictly true, and hasn't been for some time now. Ubuntu 32bit on machines with more than 4GB RAM can address that memory just fine, so long as the chipset supports it. Most do.



On 32b with> 4GiB RAM, I found that PCs on Microsoft products are
unstable. Unix is working normally AFAIK.


There was no 64bit Java support for the older versions of 64bit Windows.
We have had some Windows user people tearing their hair out on the
Wonderland project over this issue. Of course we Linux users just
chortle at them. But, the newer Windows is reported to support 64bit
java now. Heh, just another reason for Gates to get into their pockets
and force an upgrade. I feel for those poor suckers ...and then I laugh
and laugh. <evil grin> Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:45 AM
Liam Proven
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On 24 September 2011 23:06, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When I jammed my new motherboard with 6 AMD cpu's and 16 gigs of ram, 32bit
> Ubuntu ran just fine by merely plugging the harddrive back to the new
> motherboard, *with the correct kernel ...which I pre-loaded up in advance.
> But, as soon as I got my DVD, I loaded 64 bit and it really rolls better.
> So, as Basil noted, the "broad-based" answer is with a 64bit CPU, less-than
> 4 gigs of ram, go 32bit. 4 Gigs or better, go 64bit. Just as a rule-of-thumb
> mind you. YMMV, as always. Ric

The other thing to note is 64-bit code optimisation.

Compared to other CPU ISAs such as PowerPC, SPARC and so on, x86 is
notoriously register-starved. It only has 8 available - the more than
40 year old IBM System/36 had 4 times that many! Examples for popular
architectures are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_register#Some_examples

x86-64 has double the number of registers, so starvation is less of an
issue. Thank AMD for this - it invented x86-64, Intel only later and
reluctantly copied it when Itanium failed to take off. Intel was going
to do its own, different, incompatible 64-bit extended instruction set
but Microsoft told them not to be stupid and that MS would only
support 1 64-bit x86 ISA and it already was doing: AMD's AMD-64. So
Intel licensed x86-64 from AMD and copied it.

So, code compiled for 64-bit runs faster. It takes a little more
memory - well, in a few places, twice as much, obviously, but not in
all that many places and RAM is cheap these days.

But going 64-bit gives you more benefits than just >4GB accessible RAM
and larger maximum process sizes. It also means that /very/
CPU-intensive code can run 30% or more, mainly because of those extra
registers.

I've been running 64-bit since 9.10. No real problems. Flash was a
little flakey at first - although it did work - but it's been fine for
a year or more now. Nothing else at all.

--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lproven@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lproven@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 09-26-2011, 06:44 PM
Colin Watson
 
Default Ubuntu 11.10 Beta 2 (Oneiric Ocelot) Released

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 09:15:21AM -0400, J wrote:
> That being said, I just noticed that releases has a natty directory
> that has ubuntu-11.10-beta2-* images in it... never noticed that
> before, so I don't know if that's new as of Beta2 or not...

I don't see such a thing. Perhaps it's been corrected, but in any event
it's certainly a mistake, not intentional. If you still see this,
please give me a URL so that I can fix it.

Thanks,

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 AM.

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