From: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss03@volumehost.net>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Mobo/proc combination
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:41:13 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603131441.13863.bss03@volumehost.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200603132110.22738.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de>
On Monday 13 March 2006 14:10, "Hemmann, Volker Armin"
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user]
Mobo/proc combination':
> > My recommendations are:
> > <1G RAM : 32-bit kernel and userland
> > <4G RAM : 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userland
> > else : 64-bit kernel and 64-bit (multilib) userland
>
> with amd64 on s939 you are buyiong ram in pairs, to use dual channel
> mode. So you'll have 1GB, 2GB, 4GB.
Is 256M PC2700 not available, for those with very little money...
> And with 1GB you are loosing ~160mb when using 32bit.
With a stock kernel. You can actually tweak this fairly easily, and I've
seen reports of being able to use 980M in user space. That said, if
you've got > 768M of RAM and don't feel like tweaking your kernel, go
64-bit.
> Plus, you can't
> use the additional registers of the cpu in 32bit mode - so why using it
> at all?
Better memory architecture and microcode, larger caches, etc.; you might
even get a Hz bump; in the near future, you'll get hw virtualization.
There are lot of reasons to choose a modern processor than just the 64-bit
mode. That said, there's very little reason to have less than 1G of RAM
these days, and at that point you are well-served to put (at least) your
kernel in 64-bit mode.
--
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-13 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-13 4:23 [gentoo-user] Mobo/proc combination JimD
2006-03-13 5:05 ` Iain Buchanan
2006-03-13 6:59 ` JimD
2006-03-13 7:51 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-13 8:12 ` Ash Varma
2006-03-13 8:47 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-13 10:44 ` Glenn Enright
2006-03-13 11:53 ` Iain Buchanan
2006-03-13 12:18 ` Glenn Enright
2006-03-13 12:37 ` Denis
2006-03-13 13:23 ` Jerry McBride
2006-03-13 15:09 ` Denis
2006-03-14 1:14 ` Iain Buchanan
2006-03-13 17:50 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-14 4:18 ` Walter Dnes
2006-03-14 11:28 ` Mike Williams
2006-03-13 11:50 ` Iain Buchanan
2006-03-13 11:11 ` Mike Williams
2006-03-13 13:04 ` Daniel da Veiga
2006-03-13 18:22 ` Hemmann, Volker Armin
2006-03-13 18:31 ` Jim
2006-03-13 19:28 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-13 20:10 ` Hemmann, Volker Armin
2006-03-13 20:41 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [this message]
2006-03-13 21:09 ` Jim
2006-03-13 22:01 ` Mike Williams
2006-03-13 22:20 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-13 22:06 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-14 1:14 ` Jim
2006-03-14 3:59 ` Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
2006-03-13 20:08 ` Hemmann, Volker Armin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200603131441.13863.bss03@volumehost.net \
--to=bss03@volumehost.net \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox