On 10-12-15 11:42 AM, Elijah Wright wrote: >> Where I work, we made the transition to 64 on Linux in two areas before we >> transitioned everywhere else: databases and logging systems. Eventually, >> the decision was made that having a special build for 32 bit didn't make >> sense from a support perspective. > > Serious potential irritant on a 32-bit box: a log file unexpectedly > hits 2G, you don't have syslog configured to do anything special (like > rotate it on a size limit...), and you lose data. >
Isn't the 2 GiB file size limit pretty old? I have just run this command on a Fedora 14 and a Ubuntu 10.10 box on ext4 file systems, both system are 32 bit: dd bs=4096 count=786432 if=/dev/zero of=./bigfile and in both cases it created a 3.0 GiB file. Those distros have a lot of newer technology than RHEL and CentOS, but I'm fairly certain that a 32 bit RHEL 5 with ext3 will handle a file greater than 2 GiB without any problem (I cannot test, the only RHEL/CentOS systems I have access too are 64 bit). Having said that, my argument against going 32 bit is: -you are introducing a one off system (unless you do have 32 bit machines around) which makes administration and support more complicated. -you are limiting yourself in terms of memory. Even if your apps do not use the memory, Linux is very good at using the left over for buffer and FS cache. -- Yves. http://www.SollerS.ca/ http://images.SollerS.ca/ xmpp:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
