On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Mark McCullough <[email protected]>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. > > That last point is the one I would ask. Why have some systems built 32 bit > and some 64 bit? It complicates the support equation in my experience, even > if you use some fancy patch system. Something always goes wrong, and > testing new versions of code you produce now means one more type of system > to test on. > > When you put it this way, it makes sense to me. We're currently in that same kind of transition. Out database servers, and other special servers are 64 bit. Most other servers are 32 bit. We never actually sat down and made that official announcement one way or the other that the "default" server is going to be 32 or 64 bit. I'll bring that up at the next meeting and with the information I'm gathering, we'll be able to agree on this. -- -= JQ =-
_______________________________________________ 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/
