16. Dec 2015 13:12 by [email protected]:
> On 15 December 2015 at 18:41, Bruce Dubbs <> [email protected]> > > wrote: >> Richard Melville wrote: >>> >>> On 15 December 2015 at 08:36, <>>> [email protected]>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> 15. Dec 2015 01:18 by >>>> [email protected]>>>> : >>>> >>>> I'm beginning to think maybe my new direction ought to be an x86-64 >>>> Multilib, as I have a few Core2 boxes and one i7. I have some strategic >>>> questions though. >>>> >>>> I understand that some programs have "issues" with 64-bit systems. How >>>> common is this? How does one know how to plan for the "BLFS" stage? >>>> After an x86-64 system is created, and would be the host for future >>>> development, then what? Presumably the next system doesn't need to be >>>> cross-compiled. Can one use the regular LFS book? I just want to know >>>> what it "means" to make the shift. >>>> -- >>>> Paul Rogers >>>> [email protected] >>>> Rogers' Second Law: "Everything you do communicates." >>>> (I do not personally endorse any additions after this line. TANSTAAFL >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Since the last few years I've never used a 32 bit system and so far >>>> there >>>> have been no issues at all with a 64 bit system. However, I've not >>>> compiled >>>> a 32 bit system on a 64 bit host so you might run into some trouble if >>>> you >>>> plan on doing that. >>>> >>>> >>>> There have been some problems with a 64 bit only system but most of >>>> these >>>> are obsolete since a few years. There were problems with 32 bit >>>> proprietary >>>> flash versions and if you want to use Wine you need some 32 bit >>>> libraries. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would just add that running a 64 bit system on a low spec machine >>> slows it down further. Experience has shown me that, in particular, >>> the amount of RAM installed is very important. Other than that I've >>> encountered no other problems with a pore 64 bit install. >> >> >> What do you consider a low spec system? I have built LFS on a system with >> 1G of RAM several times. You just need some swap to handle a couple of >> large packages (gcc/glibc). CPU speed should not be a consideration. >> >> -- Bruce > > As this is the BLFS Support List, that's what I was considering rather > than an LFS build; and not so much building as running a completed > system. > > I don't have any figures to hand, but as an example: on an old laptop > with 2GB of DDR2 RAM and a dual core Celeron processor, running a 64 > bit system, at times, almost brought it to a halt, but a 32 bit system > (I had it dual-booted) could still be slow but was much faster than > the equivalent 64 bit system. Adding a further 2GB of RAM improved > matters considerably. Of course, as there are so many other variables > to take into account I'm not suggesting this to be a definitive study, > although I think that it does indicate that a 64 bit system requires > more horse power. > > Richard > -- > Interesting find. I wonder if this still holds with recent kernels and recent processors. So far I've only used 64 bit on systems with at least 3.5GB RAM and the results were always a (small) improvement over 32 bit. -- Willie
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
