32 vs 64

[PCBONEZ]

Re: 32 vs 64

Too bad.
So sad.

[smason]

Re: 32 vs 64

Where I work, 32 bit at the desktop 64 bit on the servers.
Some servers need it, not all, but no matter 64 bit OSes run just fine. Hell, most modern hypervisors (ESXi, XenServer etc.) won't run on 32 bit hardware. I had one app that was a pain to get working on 64 bit Linux, but worked around it.

4GB is fine for almost any desktop, even high-end photoshop work doesn't need more than 4. Maybe some engineering apps might but those aren't the norm.
Even my test box that runs VMWare workstation only has 4gb. and I can run XP Vista and7 on it at the same time.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: 32 vs 64

eBay, Google, Yahoo, MySpace...
All these things ran just fine on 32-bit for YEARS. [Including their data bases.]
- And it would still work the same today...
.
This perceived 'need' is primarily based on the 'want' to use newer software.
[Which often is the desire of the clueless 'suits' calling the shots.]
.

[Per Hansson]

Re: 32 vs 64

Too bad.
So sad.

Okok, I admit, it was not actually reading comprehension fail
I was just too lazy to reply to all of your points

I'll cherry pick just one, the 20000 users forum, I still don't see where you mentioned if it was active users or dormant accounts.
I mean it's a bit different with a 20000 users forum where we have 10 active users and the rest have not logged on in the past 6 months...

They typically ran 20,000 users [accounts] per server and they weren't slow at the user end.
.

Btw, do you mean 20000 active users or 20000 accounts?

I can set up a Pentium Pro with 128MB RAM and have 20000 accounts on it, so long as they are not active users it will be a really fast forum

[Uranium-235]

Re: 32 vs 64

thats just mysql hard drive data, but when someone logs in, the caches login data in a mysql table that gets read and then kept in active ram for performance reasons. this also depends on what forum you're using. I think VB does this, not sure about PHPBB, its been suuuch a long time since i've dealt with those, or even modified them, which I did years ago

[sofTest]

Re: 32 vs 64

Getting past 4GB is about the only valid reason to use x64.
Thing is, even when it comes to servers few actually need it.

4GB is also mostly a Microsoft limit on the desktop OS. Intel processors has since long ago supported PAE, making 4GB available for each application.

Microsoft claims this limitation to be due to some "driver instabilities". If that was the case, the solution would be to fix the drivers, not cripple the OS. And, wouldn't the same driver issues be present in their 32-bit server OS', that support up to 64GB? Obviously, who would buy their 64-bit versions, if one could get almost the same with the 32-bit version?

[Per Hansson]

Re: 32 vs 64

Obviously, who would buy their 64-bit versions, if one could get almost the same with the 32-bit version?

There is not a difference in price
Actually if you buy retail you get both DVD's in the package
Only OEM is locked to a specific branch (x86 or x64)

And PAE is a piece of crap, trust me, I have tried to use it.
So many vendors write crappy drivers it is just sad, and PAE has larger overhead than true x86-64, it also only goes up to 36bit addressing or something like that so it would only put off the inevitable by a few years (well, unless you want to keep using your old apps, but then there would be no need to upgrade at all would there?)

[sofTest]

Re: 32 vs 64

There is not a difference in price
Actually if you buy retail you get both DVD's in the package
Only OEM is locked to a specific branch (x86 or x64)

And PAE is a piece of crap, trust me, I have tried to use it.
So many vendors write crappy drivers it is just sad, and PAE has larger overhead than true x86-64, it also only goes up to 36bit addressing or something like that so it would only put off the inevitable by a few years (well, unless you want to keep using your old apps, but then there would be no need to upgrade at all would there?)

Well, PAE isn't more of a crap, than Apple elected to implement it in OS-X 32-bit, addressing up to 32GB, from version 10.5. PAE is also good enough that it's used in MS' 32-bit Enterprise and Datacenter servers. 36 bit PAE addressing is a limit on 32 bit processors, still making 64GB available (a lot even by today's standard). Sure, PAE has a very small overhead on memory handling, but a 64-bit OS has a bigger total overhead anyway (and that most users has to rely on WoW to to run their applications is not helping). PAE by it self doesn't have a overhead, as many system has this activated by default to get access to NX bit.

As for pricing, the reality is that most PC's up till recently (and many still do) came pre-installed with some kind of 32-bit OEM, forcing owners to buy a new license for access to more than 4GB. The same on the server side; how many small businesses has not bought a Small Business-server, only to discover they need a new license to upgrade their RAM? Obviously, there are no financial motivation here...

[PCBONEZ]

Re: 32 vs 64

4GB is also mostly a Microsoft limit on the desktop OS. Intel processors has since long ago supported PAE, making 4GB available for each application.

Microsoft claims this limitation to be due to some "driver instabilities". If that was the case, the solution would be to fix the drivers, not cripple the OS. And, wouldn't the same driver issues be present in their 32-bit server OS', that support up to 64GB? Obviously, who would buy their 64-bit versions, if one could get almost the same with the 32-bit version?

No the limit is due to the maximum number of addresses that can be made with 32-bits worth of 'digits' and it applies to all OS's that use a 32-bit memory map.

PAE basically creates a system where TWO maps need to be referenced to find a memory location. The second map is located in Virtual Memory.
Both maps must be accessed to find a memory location.
- It allows more RAM but slows RAM access times down.
Microsoft recommended NOT using it except for servers up until XP.
Since XP they only suggest it for very specific situations.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/wind...dware/gg487503
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/wind...e/gg487512#EVG

And as to being beneficial for applications MS says a small number will benefit but as a general rule they won't.
[In one of the links.]

IOW: PAE is not a performance enhancement, it's band aid for some very specific problems.

BTW: "Fast RAM" in servers isn't the case.
ECC and/or Registered RAM is slower than run of the mill Unbuffered RAM at the same advertised clock speed.
IOW: The idea that 'if I build my desktop like a server it will be faster' is bunk. You can do -more- at the same time but you won't be doing it faster. - That also applies to using PAE.

~~
That said;
The fact that 32-bit Servers can use PAE to get use of more RAM supports that fact that 64-bit hardware isn't really needed to get the job done.
.

[japlytic]

Re: 32 vs 64

I once thought that the original Pentium onwards was 64-bit, but only the data bus was actually 64-bit and the core was actually 32-bit.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: 32 vs 64

I can set up a Pentium Pro with 128MB RAM and have 20000 accounts on it, so long as they are not active users it will be a really fast forum

Thank you for supporting my opinion on the need for x64 over x32.
- But I did NOT say a forum. Forums aren't that demanding.

I'll cherry pick just one, the 20000 users forum, I still don't see where you mentioned if it was active users or dormant accounts.

You in fact quoted the very sentance.

I mean it's a bit different with a 20000 users forum where we have 10 active users and the rest have not logged on in the past 6 months...

Put on your thinking cap.
What would the bandwidth be for 20000 people simultaneously using chat & IM & with photo heavy profiles [some with videos] be?
[The model 'social media' site was an adult personals site in aid of using a heavily loaded model.]
-
The 20000 accounts was for ONE server in a data center that supported something in the millions of users. Looking back at my emails they actually said 20,000 to 30,000 accounts per server. My own survey [done over 3 months] found % logged in varied between 1% and 7% depending on time of day and day of week. [I was finding how much monthly bandwidth I would need to pay for in order to support X-many users. Needed that to determine the absolute lowest price I could charge for the service without going into the red. Also needed to know peak bandwidth for x-many users so I didn't overload my hosts machines at 'prime-time'. - And to know when I'd need multiple servers and load balancers.]
~~ I actually did this analysis on 3 or 4 different sites.

Anyway, you don't need x64 for a heavily loaded server.
Servers with dual Tualies were on the way out but still fairly common when I did all that.
X64 wasn't even around.
.

[Topcat]

Re: 32 vs 64

Anyway, you don't need x64 for a heavily loaded server.
Servers with dual Tualies were on the way out but still fairly common when I did all that.
X64 wasn't even around.
.

I actually have to concur with this one. Along with Badcaps.net (the site, store, forum, adserver), this server also hosts about 11 other sites, as well as some other backend maintenance tasks. For all it does and as heavy as the traffic is on badcaps.net, the server doesn't bat an eyelash. Upgrading it would be an absolute waste. I also own another car forum, which isn't on this server, but it's membership is right at 100,000, and is insanely busy. I've got that on a dual Xeon 2.4/400fsb with 4gb RAM. It's not even 64 bit capable, its an old S603. Granted, under that kind of load, mySQL would suck the life out of it (yes, it would slow to a crawl at peek, starved badly for RAM), so the databases are served from a different machine, but all the web traffic is ran through it.... It also keeps up fine. the database server is a xeon quadcore 2.66, 12gb RAM, and that does the trick.

There are a lot of applications that love 64-bit and high amounts of memory, but for most web servers, the demand isn't worth upgrading JUST for 64 bit. If you're in need of a new server, you're silly to build on 32 bit, just because you'll be locked in at the 4gb barrier, and 64 bit hardware isn't anymore expensive these days....and its all backward compatible with 32 bit stuff.

FWIW, my home system is a dual quadcore xeon E5520 w/ 24gb RAM, running XP x64 (it screams).... Pretty useless for what I do unless premiere gets crazy rendering something (rendering HD video is a massive resource hog, RAM and CPU)....then it'll start gobbling up the memory. Most home users who check email and web browse, a P4 3GHz with 1gb of RAM is fine....but overkill be thy name, and I built this beast because I wanted to......well, and I wanted to climb the F@H ranks amongst our members....HAHAHA *waits for Mikey*

As far as software and driver incompatibilities between 32 and 64 bit, I haven't encountered any with the hardware I have....but then again, its high-end workstation/server grade stuff... x64 didn't scream about any of the drivers....

[joshnz]

Re: 32 vs 64

As for driver issues just get new hardware I need to get a new printer my printer is from before win xp. my x64 machine is cheaper to build than a x32 and hay if it is still alive in 10 years x64 may be the norm.