On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, John Stoffel wrote: >>>>>> "david" == david <[email protected]> writes: > > david> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Chuong Dao wrote: >>> I would look into the growth rate of your database size. If you can fit >>> your database in RAM(limited by 32-bit), then 32-bit should be fine. > > david> remember that on a 32 bit system, the entire system is limited > david> to 4G, and any one application is limited to 1G of ram. > > This is not true, at not at least as far as I recall. I think the > split was 1G kernel, 3Gig user space, though with special hacks and > compiled kernels you could get to 3.7Gb of userspace RAM. I know > because we have/have RH7.3 images around still with the kernel patched > for this.
the default was 1:3, but can be changed fairly easily to 2:2. going to 3:1 or 3.5:.5 requires trickery (and keeping your fingers crossed that you don't get tripped up by the kernel running out of address space) distro kernels may have different defaults than the vanilla kernel, so you may be used to a different default. David Lang > But again, since memory is so cheap and easy to expand, it just makes > more sense to go with 64bit OS because it will mean less chance of > running into arbitrary limits down the line. > > david> given the sizes of ram available nowdays, it seems like an > david> obvious win to go 64 bit, especially for a fairly dedicated box > david> running few apps like you are looking at. > > And how know,s maybe you'll toss on more apps onto this system over > time and it proves it's stability and power and suddenly you've tossed > in another 4Gb of cheap ram and hey! It's doing real work now. > > *grin* > John > _______________________________________________ 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/
