If you have more than 4GB of memory, you must use a 64bit kernel or the OS
will not use the additional RAM over 4G.
Actually, you can access all your memory on 32 bits, that's the problem that PAE solves, at the cost of performance.
Think 'expanded memory' vs 'extended memory'...   ;-)
And boy, if you don't know what 'expanded memory' is (or was) it is because you are not *THAT* old! ;-) ET PS: And if you *REALLY* want convoluted memory management, think of segment-offset addressing and C compile time 'memory models':
http://80864beginner.com/Tutorial/Memory-Model.html
Yes, I am *THAT* old...


Brian Weaver writes:
If you have more than 4GB of memory, you must use a 64bit kernel or the OS
will not use the additional RAM over 4G. On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Nathan England <[email protected]> wrote:
**

Keith,


You and I have discussed this in the past. I have always been a proponent
of 32-bit over 64-bit because 32 is a little faster.If you have one or two
GB of ram, then that is true. But if the computer has more than 2 GB of ram
it will get some benefits of being 64-bit. But if your system has 4 GB or
more, you will likely notice a speed difference. About a year ago, when I
moved back to linux from windows, I went all 64-bit and I've not had any
troubles.


You may not notice a difference, but your kernel will be happier. The are
three styles of kernels.


(1) 32-bit kernels built for 1 or 2 GB of ram. These kernels do not have
PAE enabled and are very fast. (PAE = Physical Address Extensions) meaning
it allows to use more memory on a 32 bit system which really cannot use
that memory otherwise. It's like fake 64-bit.


(2) 32-bit kernels built for more than 2 GB of ram. These kernels have PAE
enabled. I have read several articles now from people who have done tests,
as well as some reputable websites, that agree that PAE enabled kernels are
the slowest of the bunch. Addressing 64-bit memory space while operating in
a 32-bit environment takes a lot of tricks and creates some over-head.


(3) 64-bit kernels are the fastest in all tests performed. These do not
play the PAE tricks as they are native and can address all memory space
properly.


You as a user may not notice the difference in how any of the kernels
work, so it may be moot to you. But in the end, I would recommend you go
64-bit anyway.


Nathan


On Friday, May 31, 2013 09:28:01 keith smith wrote:



Hi,
Even though I have 64bit hardware I always install the 32bit version of
Linux.  I do so because of the past discussions on this list that made me
believe the 32bit OS was better because 64bit caching is actually slower
due to the requirement that the cache be filled to a certain point before
it is moved.  I think I recall something about the amount of RAM having
some effect here also.
Using a 32bit version over a 64bit version seems counter intuitive,
however that is what I have taken away from these conversations about 32bit
vs 64bit Linux.
I'm using CentOS 6.x on a LAMP server that gets a low amount of traffic.
However I may make the jump to Linux on my desktop this summer. (this will
be my 3rd attempt to become M$ free except one VM so I can use IE for
testing) I think all of my hardware is 64bit.
So that begs the question, is 32bit better than 64bit or do I not
understand the issue? Thank you for your feedback. Keith
------------------------
Keith Smith


--







Regards,


Nathan England


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NME Computer Services http://www.nmecs.com Nathan England ([email protected]) Systems Administration / Web Application Development Information Security Consulting (480) 559.9681


---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Reply via email to