Author: Peter-Henry Mander Date: To: oxlug Subject: Re: [OxLUG] Best way to upgrade to 64 bit - and is it worth it?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:23:31 +0100
Ian Pickworth <ian@???> wrote:
> Moving into the philosophical address space for a while - why is 64 bit
> taking so long to work its way into the mainstream? Is it that the real
> hot market is in smaller devices (like phones and things) and thus
> developers just don't see the need? Is it just inertia
> in developer land? Or maybe that 64 bit is technology push from the chip
> chaps, so not a strong pull for tech users?
Until everyone has oodles of physical RAM, and I mean 128 to 1024
gigabytes, there's no big advantage in using 64 bits.
The reason I have 64bit Xubuntu at home is to compile and run the
server s/w I write for work while working at home. I need to create
64bit binaries to address the huge real-time customer databases my
employer has to handle. These are usually stored in RAM for access
speed, so 64 bit addressing of physical RAM is a requirement. But I
can't have all that RAM at home, which is a pity.
64bit Xubuntu hasn't caused any compatibility or legacy hardware issues
yet. I haven't tried a webcam though, thanks for the heads-up.
> Doubling
> the disk transfer speed has a very visible effect on responsiveness. I
> suppose that puts the 32/64 CPU discussion in a different light - bit of
> a sideshow from a system point of view maybe.
Yup, I concur. I've got enough RAM to compile entire s/w projects in
memory, and the dinky quad-core I have can beat the huge servers on a
straight compilation run. Very impressive! Inkscape and Gimp become
very responsive too, on the latest CPUs when given enough RAM.
And here is the pivotal reason for 64 bit computing: if you can cram
your PC full of RAM, instead of relying on spinning swap for storing
the working set of data, modern 64 bit PCs are *immensely* fast.
Without enough RAM, handling relatively large files, like audio or
video, brings my PC crawling to it's knees! I already have the maximum
4Gb of physical RAM that the mobo can take, so I will have to resort to
using a four disk RAID-0 to push the data rate up. (Yeah, regular
backups, I know!)
When persistent static RAM comes to market I'll be very pleased. We
took a bit step backwards when volatile RAM became the standard. The
ancient magnetic core memory had one major advantage of enabling systems
to "hibernate" when turned off, and be instantly available when turned
on. No imperative need for off-line storage. Spinning magnetic disks
are an aberration. Flash RAM disks are doomed to a short market life.
Gimme at least 256 Gbytes of static, persistent memory plugged into the
mobo!
Another reason Intel/AMD are pushing 64 bit computing is economies of
scope, not having to supply more than one design for their entire
customer base. So yes, we have x86_64 whether we want it or not. But
I'm not complaining.
