Re: x86-64 on i386 (was Re: Promoting i386 version over x86_64?)

[Paul Jakma <paul dishone st>]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> Yet I could tell from the applications where performance is important.
> You reject my metric, I reject yours. Something of an impasse.

I'm not rejecting the performance metric at all.

> (It's also not too hard to make firefox use more than 3GB of virtual
> address space, though I admit you do need to work at it a little)

Only because it's obsolete. Multi-process browsers use a lot less 
RAM per process.

> What was the point of this conversation again?

For those who can't sort by thread in their MUA: To ask that 
32-userspace-on-64 be supported (it pretty much all works, except for 
yum updating certain things, like the kernel), as there are definite 
benefits to a 32-by-default userspace.

Some people chose to argue "But you should just run 64bit 
completely", despite people already having described one reason to 
32bit (memory usage). And from that we somehow got into a "x86_64 
versus x86" thread of doom, with (IMHO) much missing of the general 
point.

Anyway, enough.

regards,
--
Paul Jakma	paul jakma org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Where do you go to get anorexia?
 		-- Shelley Winters