I really can not make a case for 32 bit except for a legacy binary where you do Not have a choice
Do we need a 32 bit kernel ? Probably not. Do we need the ability To run a 32 bit binary?I think so -:::-sG-:::- On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:17, Michael Stapleton <michael.staple...@techsologic.com> wrote: > So I guess it would be fair to say that the best OS is the one that > support both at the same time, and leaves the option to the developer > for each individual application. > > My understanding is that Solaris is more like 4G per process/kernel, > rather than 4GB total. > Multiple 32 bit processes could use more than 4GB total; just not > individually. > > Mike > > > On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 15:58 +0000, Steve Gonczi wrote: > >> For Intel CPUs, 32 bit code is certainly more compact , and in some cases >> arguably faster than 64 bit code. (say, comparing the same code on the same >> machine >> compiled 32 and 64 bit) >> >> But, newer cpu silicon tends to make performance improvements >> in many ways (e.g locating more supporting circuity on the cpu's silicon, >> increasing L1 /L2 >> cache sizes, etc) >> >> Newer CPUs also tend to be more energy efficient. >> Intel made great strides towards energy efficiency. >> E.g.: idling the cpu when not in use ( deep C states etc. >> of gating off any circuitry that is not in use, modulating the cpu clock >> rate >> ( SpeedStep). >> >> So performance and energy efficiency is more dependent on >> which generation of cpu core design we have, rather than on >> just the the bitness . >> >> >> The primary advantage of "64 bit" per se ( ie running a given cpu in 64 bit >> mode) >> is the increased addressable memory space. >> The current hardware limit set by the manufacturers is at 48 address bits >> (256 terabytes theoretical limit) Actual OS support cuts this in half, or >> less. >> Motherboard limitations further curtail this, but 48G motherboards are now >> commonplace. >> >> On 32 bit Intel (Amd) you are typically limited to 4G, which is split >> between kernel and userland >> depending on the OS and configuration. (E.g.: 1G kernel and 3G userland) >> >> Steve >> >> ----- "Michael Stapleton" <michael.staple...@techsologic.com> wrote: >> >> >> While we are talking about 32 | 64 bit processes; >> Which one is better? >> Faster? >> More efficient? >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >> OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org >> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >> OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org >> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss