On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Chris Jones wrote: > On 1 Feb 2011, at 5:31am, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 2/1/11 00:26 , Derrick Brashear wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Chris Jones <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I need to run the 64bit kernel, as have updated my MacBook Pro to 8GB ram, >>>> and I need to run the 64 bit kernel to properly support this. AFS is so >>>> slow >> >> Coming in a bit late: is the 64-bit kernel really necessary? I've been >> running an iMac with 16GB using the 32-bit kernel; no doubt there's some >> memory wastage due to 1MB pages but not really noticeable in practice. > > Interesting side question. I was lead to believe my late 2008 MBPro (which > according Apple doesn't support more than 4GB) needs the 64 bit kernel to run > with more. I haven't tried though. > > That said, I don't think if it is or is not necessary is really that > relevant. Running the 64 bit kernel has other performance benefits, so is > desirable. Also I believe the latest Mac Pros now use the 64 bit kernel by > default...
My relatively recent vintage macbook pro can be force-booted to 64bit but defaults to 32. The deskside Pros default to 64. Several 3rd-party apps I use didn't like 64bit, but when not using them it felt faster. I didn't stick with 64bit long enough to have anything other than a seat-of-the-pants impression. > The 64 bit kernel is the way of the future, so I think it best OpenAFS works > out any niggles it has with it as soon as it can ... Just my opinion ... Seconded._______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
