Patrick Shanahan wrote: > * joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [08-13-07 17:41]: >> Patrick Shanahan wrote: >>> iianm, x86_64 is backward compatable with x86_32, must be anyway. You >>> say you are running 32bit on a 64bit arch (I don't know why, it's like >>> having 4GB of memory and leaving 2GB in the desk drawer. >> Bad analogy! > > ?? > >> 32 bits linux fits quite nicely on x86_64 hardware! > > I believe that's what I said?
Your statement seemed to imply wasted capacity. I recently nuked a troublesome x86_46 install on a new system I had set up for a startup business, did a fresh install of linux i386 (same exact distro) and restored the data from the previous install. In addition to finally getting the 3rd party odbc drivers working, the wan download speed was also drastically improved (don't ask me why, perhaps some obscure driver issue with that particular ethernet card?). In addition, when I hammered the apache server with some quick and dirty benchmark tests, I found that the performance difference between i386 and x86_64 was pretty much down in the noise. Either way, local ab2 tests showed a capacity to serve about 23,000 requests per second for small files, fairly independent of concurrency, i.e. the results were pretty much level between 16 and 512 concurrent requests. In any case, in moving from x86_64 to 136 there was no wasted capacity that I could discern, and things just worked better all around. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
