gnu/linux on AMD: 64-bit or 32-bit?

[nmeyers at javalinux.net (nmeyers at javalinux.net)]

On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:13:40AM -0400, John Kirby wrote:
> Friend of mine just mailed me. He got a swank new machine and was curious 
> about 64bit vs 32bit versions of distributions:
> 
> "My processor is an AMD Athlon 64. This means I could opt for a 64-bit version 
> of Linux -- I have seen several. I'm fearful though that I may end up with 
> something less tested and hence less stable than a plain old 32-bit version.
> 
> What do you think?"

I've installed Gentoo 32- and 64-bit on different partitions. The 64-bit
runs fine - no obvious signs of instability - but there are a lot of
packages that simply are not available yet in 64-bit, and I don't run
any applications that care about the larger address space. Unless you've
got a reason to use 64-bit - such as needing the address space or using
an app that performs better with the 64-bit ops - I haven't found a
compelling reason to use it.

One of my experiments in 64-bit-land was to try the 32-bit chroot
environment. It works somewhat, but I was easily able to crash a Java
app that works fine in a) the true 32-bit environment or b) with the
64-bit JVM in the 64-bit environment. So, based on brief experimentation,
I wouldn't rely on running 32-bit under 64-bit for anything important.

Nathan

> 
> I only have experience with RH and Suse 32-bit installs so any feedback I can 
> pass on is appreciated. 
> 
> Thanks
> K
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://olduvai.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>