[SOLVED] Use 32-bit Slackware? Post here to let the developers know!

TobiSGD · 02-25-2013, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jheengut

I do not care as 64-bits support >892MB better

Fixed that for you.

Lockywolf · 02-25-2013, 01:58 PM

I use slackware32 on my netbook, as it doesn't support x86_64 and I am otherwise completely satisfied with it.

meejies · 02-25-2013, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audriusk

32-bit Slackware is still useful on a small VPS (up to 2GB RAM), I do have one from Linode (512MB RAM).

Similarly, I have a VPS from HostVirtual with a mere 256MB of RAM, which is why I decided to install the 32-bit version of Slackware 14.

gabytf · 02-25-2013, 09:22 PM

I am still having Slackware14.0 32-bit running my Dell laptop which CPU is Intel Pentium M processor 1.70GHz Centrino, 512 RAM.

irgunII · 02-27-2013, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H

Yes, from what I see it uses about 20-30% more RAM, but NOT twice as much like rumors suggest.

Depending on the application, performance benefits can be many times faster, especially for encryption and multimedia encoding.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...204_3264&num=1

Atom processors benefit greatly from both compiling for the Atom processor and 64-bit if it supports it.

But there's the rub "depending on the application..." and "...if it supports it."

That means that there's not near as many 64 bit app's as 32 bit that run well with so much fiddling it's a nightmare or simply a PITA, and that there's way too many systems out there that still aren't and have no need to be 64 bit hardware. Those two reasons alone are enough to stop one from even considering dropping 32 bit in any future within the next 5 to 10 years at least, because people aren't suddenly going to become rich enough overnight sometime in the near (or not) future to be able to afford pure 64 bit systems and there won't be all the app's out there in the world that will all be pure 64 bit only. I personally can afford to upgrade hardware *maybe* once every 5 to 7 years unless I absolutely have to because of a failure of hardware, like my doggon'd dvd burner yesterday <mutter, grumble, sigh>. The performance benefits all across the board, on *every* app just isn't there yet and isn't enough to make people want or even have to move to 64 bit yet.

jheengut · 02-27-2013, 08:30 AM

from Official Sabayon Linux

best non pae distro::

http://www.facebook.com/groups/36125..._comment_reply

jheengut · 02-27-2013, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD

Fixed that for you.

64-bits support >892MB better

????

Could you please explain ???

or just post a link SVP.

jtsn · 02-27-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jheengut

from Official Sabayon Linux

best non pae distro::

http://www.facebook.com/groups/36125..._comment_reply

You must log in to see this page.

lukkon · 02-27-2013, 04:59 PM

I still use Slackware 32-bit on a Core2Duo machine, because there was no reason to reinstall OS after hardware upgrade.

TobiSGD · 02-27-2013, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jheengut

64-bits support >892MB better

????

Could you please explain ???

or just post a link SVP.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/900604

Quote:

And for the kernel, the bigger virtual address space really is a _huge_
deal. HIGHMEM accesses really are very slow. You don't see that in user
space, but I really have seen 25% performance differences between
non-highmem builds and CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G enabled for things that try to put
a lot of data in highmem (and the 64G one is even more expensive). And
that was just with 2GB of RAM.

The RAM limit when compiling without HIGHMEM support is 892MB.
Linus Torvalds and Hans Peter Anvin (two of the people which should know) recommend to run a 64 bit kernel on anything with more than 2GB (Mr. Anvin even 1GB) of RAM

Quote:

There's a reason I personally
refuse to even care about >2GB 32-bit machines. There's just no excuse
these days to do that.

and http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/li...1.1/03098.html

Quote:

Since 32 bits means that any machine with 1 GB more means HIGHMEM, the
number of non-embedded machines that should run 32-bit kernels today is
functionally the null set. Unfortunately Linux distros have not
properly promoted 64-bit kernels for 32-bit distros; although pure 64
bits is better, it would be a *helluva* lot better if people stuck on 32
bits for compatibility reasons had a saner alternative.

jtsn · 02-28-2013, 11:49 AM

I had a self-built 64 bit kernel with a 32 bit userland on my AMD64 machine before Slackware64 became available. Today it is more easy to build such a setup: Install Slackware x86 and take the kernel/modules packages from Slackware64 - done.

Of course there are still scenarios, where you still need a 32 bit kernel: If your CPU supports x86-64, but doesn't have VT (because some suits decided you have to pay a premium), you can only run 32 bit virtualized guests.

rizitis · 02-28-2013, 04:38 PM

Code:

darkstar:~$ cat /etc/*version*
Slackware 14.0
darkstar:~$ uname -a
Linux darkstar 3.2.29-smp #2 SMP Mon Sep 17 13:16:43 CDT 2012 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU       Q 740  @ 1.73GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
darkstar:~$ sudo dmidecode -s system-product-name 
Password:
Inspiron N5010
darkstar:~$

michaelslack · 02-28-2013, 10:54 PM

For the record, I still use 32-bit slackware.

My main work machine is an i7 ultrabook with 4GB RAM. I initially put slackware64 on it and it was fine but eventually I came across software which needed to be 32-bit. I tried out Alien Bob's multilib system and that was ok but it wasn't as seamless a slackware experience as I am used to. This is mainly my own fault probably, but I just found it a bit hard to keep track of which libraries needed multi-versions. So in the end I just found it easier to make it a 32-bit system. For my own purposes (I'm a uni lecturer, email, browsing, typesetting and a bit of mathematical computing) the performance difference between 32-bit and 64-bit on my main machine is not discernible.

Also I've got a few older netbook-type things (32-bit only) lying around at home, and I build a lot of my own packages. It's nice that I can use the one package on all machines.

Cheers,

Michael

jheengut · 03-03-2013, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtsn

You must log in to see this page.

slackware users are supposed to ask for help or post comments on http://www.linuxquestions.org

not facebook. or twitter or ...... whatever

Alien Bob preferred to quit of that ....

jheengut · 03-03-2013, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TobiSGD

The RAM limit when compiling without HIGHMEM support is 892MB.
Linus Torvalds and Hans Peter Anvin (two of the people which should know) recommend to run a 64 bit kernel on anything with more than 2GB (Mr. Anvin even 1GB) of RAM
and http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/li...1.1/03098.html

So I get the maths now 1024-128-4==892MB.

128MB because of sharing RAM with intergrated GPU

PS : why 4MB more I do not need to know since I'm sure it is all due to x86 crap or because of the BIOS