From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1Sqxia-0004UM-Qr for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:40:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 79531E0678; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593BAE01A3 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40171B4019 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:39:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.344 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.434, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_RCVD_USER=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2GstR_Y-WoEi for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:39:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35C401B400E for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 02:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sqxgj-0004gx-U4 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:39:01 +0200 Received: from wsip-98-172-49-147.no.no.cox.net ([98.172.49.147]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:39:01 +0200 Received: from boxcars by wsip-98-172-49-147.no.no.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2012 04:39:01 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: 32bit or 64bit Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:39:13 -0500 Organization: none Message-ID: <20120716213913.4231c442@fuchsia.remarqs.net> References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: wsip-98-172-49-147.no.no.cox.net X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-Archives-Salt: 1e9c7074-001a-435f-b3c9-34a9601d4514 X-Archives-Hash: cca017fbb5509fe6a05885e53442428a On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:52:08 +0530 Nilesh Govindrajan wrote: > So the same old query again I guess. > What architecture should I use for a machine with 3GB RAM and a 64bit > processor? > > I believe 64bit should be given serious consideration only if RAM is > gt or = 4 GB, even there 32bit is allowable with PAE if I'm not wrong. > > So what is recommended? There are as such no special use cases to go > 64bit for me. I'd go with 64-bit mostly because it's my impression more people (both devs and users) are using it now than 32-bit, so ebuilds/packages get more testing under 64-bit. But you don't say why you believe 64-bit shouldn't be seriously considered for a machine with <4 GiB RAM.