On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:33:14 +1100, Alex Samad wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 03:48:03PM +0000, Camaleón wrote: >> There are still reasons to install a 64 bits kernel if the micro >> supports it. In fact, I have an Intel Celeron with just 1 GiB of RAM >> (max. allowed is 2 GiB) and installed a 64 bits (amd64) Debian, just >> for compatibility issues with the rest of the machines which are also >> running 64 bits kernels :-) > > interesting, could you elaborate, I have a mix of 32/64 bit machines and > I can understanding the advantage of keep them all 64 bit, well the only > 1 I can think of is package space / caching of packages, but I use the > same config files across i386/amd64....
The main advantage of keeping the same architecture in this computer (even having no performance gain at all) is using it like a "guinea pig" for testing updates and packages that I can then install on production systems. It is no rare to see broken packages for 64-bits but not the 32-bits counterparts (or viceversa) so I prefer to first perform any test in the closest environment I can simulate to prevent further problems when implementing the updates or installing new packages on working systems. Having a 32-bit system on that computer has less benefit for me than installing a 64-bits one. That said, I also have a 32-bits VM, just for making comparisons between all of them :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.02.16.23.02...@gmail.com