LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-05-2013, 08:01 PM   #46
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 145Reputation: 145

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Nonetheless the comment from Hans Peter Anvin has nothing to do at all with Ubuntu or benchmarks, it explains the technical reasons why 64 bit reduces overhead on systems with enough RAM that they need to use HIGHMEM when running 32 bit.
Hans Peter Anvin was talking about the overhead, whose amount was concluded from the Ubuntu benchmark test with the very title of the thread he was replying to.

What's more, Hans Peter Anvin's assertion of "the number of non-embedded machines that should run 32-bit kernels today is functionally the null set" basically means that he thinks that because Intel, his employer, don't ship more IA32 desktop CPUs, all IA32 desktop CPUs must have disappeared immediately, within one nanosecond.

Don't you think he is brain dead to this extent?
 
Old 09-05-2013, 08:22 PM   #47
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,883
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
64-bit memory addressing is going to give more overhead than 32-bit addressing, but realistically, having the ability to use more memory addressing space which 64-bit allows past the 4 GB limit of 32-bit operating systems without specialized features such as PAE (Physical Address Extension) which was used in Windows Server 2003 Enterprise and Datacenter Editions.

Linux, *BSD, OSX, and other UNIX variants and like systems all have support for PAE, but the CPU utilized in the machine must also support PAE as well, and other stipulations must be met with also.
 
Old 09-05-2013, 08:27 PM   #48
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,426
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996
I think that as a kernel developers he is more knowledgeable about these topics than most other people, regardless for which company he works. Also, how Ubuntu performs in benchmarks is irrelevant to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, the mechanisms are the same on Red Hat or Slackware, and irrelevant for his comment, since these mechanisms were already known before.

Regarding his comment that there is no good reason to use 32 bit OSes anymore, I assume that he means modern machines. AMD delivers 64 bit x86 CPUs since 2003, Intel since 2004. Anything that old is in the world of IT ancient.
 
Old 09-05-2013, 08:29 PM   #49
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,426
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
having the ability to use more memory addressing space which 64-bit allows past the 4 GB limit of 32-bit operating systems without specialized features
Make 892 MB of those 4GB and you are correct. Read the link I gave before for explanation.
 
Old 09-05-2013, 08:43 PM   #50
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,883
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
Yeah, and with most systems coming with configurations of 8, 16, 32, and even 64 GB of RAM, having a 32-bit operating system is more or less self-defeating. Even PAE has it's limitations as accessing more than 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit system is considered risky due to the instabilities of the system to support the extended address ranges.

You'd kind of be nuts to even offer a system anymore with less than 4GB and a 32-bit operating system. I've even seen NetBooks starting to go 64-bit.

As originally stated, the ONLY 32-bit systems I've seen sold are ARM based 32-bit computers like Tablets and PDAs.

The only market 32-bit has left is legacy system support, and that market is shrinking every day, and for one company, specifically Intel, they're crapping bricks over this because they own x86_32, while AMD owns x86_64 technology. Right now they're in a mutual collaboration to where if one dies the other dies too, but if 32-bit dies, Intel is going to be hurting, because all AMD has to do is cease the need for x86_32 support in their CPUs and strictly move into AMD64/EM64T and they'll have Intel by the balls.
 
Old 09-05-2013, 08:56 PM   #51
chrisretusn
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 469

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
(Incidentally, it took me forever to learn that the "WOW64" I kept seeing in Wine's release notes didn't refer to World of Warcraft support).
I just fell out of my chair, I thought the same thing the first time I ran in to WOW64. LOLROTF

Go in to a store, most of the motherboards are 64-bit.
 
Old 09-05-2013, 09:27 PM   #52
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,883
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
I haven't seen a 32-bit motherboard in more than 5 years.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 06:02 AM   #53
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,426
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
The only market 32-bit has left is legacy system support, and that market is shrinking every day, and for one company, specifically Intel, they're crapping bricks over this because they own x86_32, while AMD owns x86_64 technology. Right now they're in a mutual collaboration to where if one dies the other dies too, but if 32-bit dies, Intel is going to be hurting, because all AMD has to do is cease the need for x86_32 support in their CPUs and strictly move into AMD64/EM64T and they'll have Intel by the balls.
AMD64/EM64T is not possible without IA32, there are merely extensions of the architecture, not new architectures. Intel and AMD has granted each other patent licenses to use the stuff from on another, so I don't see problems if one of them would die. Which I don't expect either, with Intel as the major player in desktop and server CPUs and AMD as the major player for game console CPUs.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:13 AM   #54
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 145Reputation: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
I haven't seen a 32-bit motherboard in more than 5 years.
Me neither, because they are always hidden in the chassis.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:27 AM   #55
guanx
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,014

Rep: Reputation: 145Reputation: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
I think that as a kernel developers he is more knowledgeable about these topics than most other people,
He may know, but he can lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
regardless for which company he works.
This is why he lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Also, how Ubuntu performs in benchmarks is irrelevant to the technical merits of the Linux kernel, the mechanisms are the same on Red Hat or Slackware,
Can you point me out where Red Hat or Slackware users said Apache is 16 times faster in 64-bit than in 32-bit on the same hardware? Obviously I did not question the mechanism. I am pretty clear I only said the benchmark was fake. Drawing conclusion from obviously fake data is not good conduct.

Yes, 64-bit can be faster. But you should prove it in some way such as a t-test, etc. but not just say "Ah! Some Ubuntu guys say 64-bit is 16 times faster so no machine should run 32-bit nowadays".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
AMD delivers 64 bit x86 CPUs since 2003, Intel since 2004. Anything that old is in the world of IT ancient.
That AMD and Intel deliver x86_64 CPUs since 2003/04 doesn't mean they don't deliver IA32 CPUs since then. I just checked ark.intel.com and saw the CPU for my home server, a U2500, is still active. I find no x86_64 alternative with the same or lower TDP and higher performance. I don't want to trigger a fire alarm with a hot 64-bit CPU running 24*365.

Last edited by guanx; 09-06-2013 at 11:37 AM.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 11:38 AM   #56
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Hanover, Germany
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 15,426
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996Reputation: 3996
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanx View Post
He may know, but he can lie.

This is why he lies.
Please provide evidences for your claims that Hans Peter Anvin lies in his post. I would suspect that lying on the LKML is pretty soon be debunked by other developers.
Quote:
Can you point me out where Red Hat or Slackware users said Apache is 16 times faster in 64-bit than in 32-bit on the same hardware? Obviously I did not question the mechanism. I am pretty clear I only said the benchmark was fake.
I have never claimed they said that, I pointed out the the mechanisms are the same on any Linux OS, so that they apply to any Linux OS. Don't put words in my mouth!
Quote:
That AMD and Intel deliver x86_64 CPUs since 2003/04 doesn't mean they don't deliver IA32 CPUs since then. I just checked ark.intel.com and saw the CPU for my home server, a U2500, is still active. I find no x86_64 alternative with the same or lower TDP and higher performance. I don't want to trigger a fire alarm with a hot 64-bit CPU running 24*365.
If a Core 2 Duo SU9300 with 10W TDP (instead of the 9W of your CPU) will trigger your fire alarm then you should recalibrate it. Get serious.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 02:52 PM   #57
MasterOfMagic
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemfire View Post
At this stage in the game I find it easier to keep a stripped down 32-bit install runnable in a Linux Container (LXC) for those few items that have to stay i486. That way everything living in the container can just be static. Once its all working you leave it alone.
Why something as complicated at LXC? Why not just ye olde chroot? I understand there'd be no isolation, but as you're granting lots of access anyway I think chroot would be simpler. You can set up schroot to automatically bind things and copy files. I have even set up an Ubuntu environment to run 32-bit software that was only supported under Ubuntu (though that WAS a mess).

Last edited by MasterOfMagic; 09-06-2013 at 02:53 PM. Reason: Coherent thoughts for coherent people. Breathe!
 
Old 09-06-2013, 04:36 PM   #58
chemfire
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 69

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterOfMagic View Post
Why something as complicated at LXC? Why not just ye olde chroot? I understand there'd be no isolation, but as you're granting lots of access anyway I think chroot would be simpler. You can set up schroot to automatically bind things and copy files. I have even set up an Ubuntu environment to run 32-bit software that was only supported under Ubuntu (though that WAS a mess).
Not many good reasons really. Mostly so I had the option of running the full stack hald, consolekit, notifyd, etc in case something expected to see the usual environment but for the most part chrooting into a 32bit tree would work fine.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 05:56 PM   #59
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, Slackware-14.1, PCBSD-10.0
Posts: 2,883
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanx View Post
Me neither, because they are always hidden in the chassis.
You'd actually be surprised at how many motherboards I often run into with my line of work anymore. I run into very few newer systems with 32-bit only technology inside of it.

In fact little people know this but 64-bit technology has been around for a good number of years especially in memory modules and peripheral add-on cards. Most motherboards have been 64-bit capable for years now even before 64-bit processors were out, but it wasn't until a CPU was created to run AMD64/EM64T and actually installed in those systems that true 64-bit computing actually came to light.
 
Old 09-06-2013, 06:12 PM   #60
chemfire
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 69

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I think this thread is wondering off the rails. 32-bit only hardware is going to be around and useful for a long long time yet. Both in the x86 and in the broader world of all platforms. I was more interested in the software side of things (which should be more flexible and faster moving); and further interested in the narrow space of x86 vs AMD64/EM64T.

I feel for the most user space code that can only compile/run on x86 at this stage in the game is a case that should largely be considered broken or obsolete; responding to the original post about suggest multilib be made an OOB option for Slackware.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Native VPN support in 10.04 alpha_lt Ubuntu 0 05-31-2010 02:43 PM
Native 802.11g support. azrael808 Linux - Hardware 2 02-13-2005 08:36 AM
IPW2200 native support in FC3? MacSob Fedora 1 10-24-2004 08:25 AM
Native Raid Support for RedHat devinWhalen Red Hat 1 06-09-2004 10:23 AM
native java2 support, When? moeminhtun *BSD 1 06-20-2003 02:50 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration