Kewl, Rob, but one can imagine quite a lot, I should hope. In that set, one
can imagine a situation where 64bit is both desirable and efficient ;)
Regards, Jim
Linux S/390-zSeries Support, SEEL, IBM Silicon Valley Labs
t/l 543-4021, 408-463-4021, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** Grace Happens ***
Rob van der Heij
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Linux on cc:
390 Port Subject: Re: Probly a stoopid ?,
but what's "better"...31-bit or 64-bit?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IST.EDU>
07/14/2003 01:26
PM
Please respond to
Linux on 390 Port
Jim Sibley wrote:
> Alan, I would assume that if you need that 64 bit addressing (not 64 bit
> arithmetic, which has been around a long time), you want to use a LOT of
> memory.
Not necessarily. It may be that you want your Linux processes to have
64 bit linear address space so that they can map files with low density
in their address space and have Linux bring in portions that the process
needs to see.
One could imagine such a process being sufficiently more efficient to
make up for the higher base cost of running 64-bit Linux.
Rob
