On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 02:04:40PM -0700, Paul Rogers wrote: > > Not necessary, I already have a pair of identical (Habit I got into with > that "other" software that screams bloody murder if it detects being > moved to a different system in the event of failure.) 4GB 2.67GHz Conroe > Core 2 Duo's right here. Anything up to 4GB of RAM only needs 32-bit > support. 32-bits addresses all of real RAM, and adding more virtual > from swap hits performance hard. 64-bit support does nothing good, just > wastes space with the longer instruction addresses. > With x86_64 you get more CPU registers. When I first built x86_64 (way before it was in LFS) I ran comparisons - at that time I had a single core AMD CPU. And for me, 64-bit seemed to be faster (runtime in the completed system, I don't recall if I compared compilation times).
ĸen -- I had to walk fifteen miles to school, barefoot in the snow. Uphill both ways. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
