radish wrote: > In general (and this is an area I do know a little about!) performance > on a non-memory starved machine will be the same between 32-bit and > 64-bit OS installs (as largely backed up by those links).
That has been my experience as well, sometimes the 32 bit wins, as the working set of the memory image is smaller (half the size). 64 bit wins when you have lots of memory and can use it rather than touching the disk. With enough memory, you can load a whole database (say MySql as used by SqueezeCenter) into memory. That is way fast. Since the SC is usually a very light load (except scanning) I would not expect a difference. Its interesting how the definition of "lots of memory" changes. I refused to use a PC until it could multi-task, which realistically meant 2MB for Windows 2.11. The first PC I bought for my home in 1990, had 5MB and all my friends asked "what in the world are you gonna do with all that memory?" By 1992, beta testing NT, you had to have 32MB to run it. The latest Intel CPU chips want three sets of physical memory, and the sweet spot is 6GB in three sticks of 2GB each. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com/ _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
