Have you switched to 64 bits yet?

[ephemera]

If not, why?
If yes, why?

[corey_james]

have only just moved to 64 bit...

I tried 64bit freebsd about 2 or so years ago and had problems with a lot of ports being 32 bit only so i went back to 32 bit. Now, 64bit is where everyone and everything is going.

[robbak]

This notebook is running 64 bit Ubuntu with few issues (maybe that is why flash is so horridly iffy, and i couldn't try out wuala the other day), and I run the shop server on amd64 FreeBSD. It is certainly the way things will move, and the 4G limit is becoming relevant.
My home desktop still runs i386, (wine, flash are/were holding me back there), but I'll be looking to change next major upgrade

[vermaden]

I would choose 64bit OS only for hardware that has more then 3.5GB of RAM, but that also depende how specific motherboard handles memory remap over 4GB, some motherboards wound show 2.8GB RAM of 4GB avialable, and some would show 3.8GB so its also very hardware/BIOS dependant.

All my hardware has at most 2GB of RAM so I do not see any point in using 64bit OS, the only exception is OpenSolaris here which detects at boot if your hardware is 64bit capable, and if so, then it boots as 64bit OS, but it can be set manually to boot as 32bit OS also.

There are some Ports that will not run on 64bit as WINE or some codecs of Mplayer which does not encourage me to go into 64bit.

I do not see any point of using 64bit instead of more native RAM support isntead of handicapped PAM.

The only ground for me that is 64bit ready is servers, but for server that has 2GB of RAM I also do not see the point of going 64bit, but I would like to hear your voices here.

[greencross]

I've got 32-bit hardware. But I certainly don't feel distressed like that emoticon =)

[ephemera]

ubuntu64 is working well for me. all the hardware is supported (c2d on intel g33 board) and the apps i need work. even that pesky flash works well with opera (not that i really need it ).
vista64 also works well except that it uses an obsene amount of memory - 1GB on bootup .
Freebsd is running in a VM.

[anemos]

I use 32bit arch system (at least for my "personal needs").
...but sooner or later...

[ephemera]

for servers 64 bit OS is almost a given. but i am interested in knowing what desktop users are running because there the incentive to switch to 64b is much less...atleast for the present anyway. once desktops cross the 4GB mark the transition to 64b will be complete with apps optimized for 64b.

[TerryP]

I don't care about 64-Bit OS [yet].


Most of my hardware uses 32-Bit P6/NetBurst based chips, one is an EM64T (I think they call it Intel 64 now), but all systems run a 32-Bit x86 os, no x86-64 !

I don't really see any value in using a 64-Bit operating system, unless I have a lot of RAM (>3gb), my dream machine would have about 6-8GB of ram and FreeBSD amd64, but I don't have a few thousand dollars :-P


I am just content, if the programmers that wrote my main-software understood pointers.

[vermaden]

Originally Posted by TerryP

my dream machine would have about 6-8GB of ram and FreeBSD amd64, but I don't have a few thousand dollars :-P

Thousands?

8GB RAM = 4 x 2GB DDR2 800Mhz sticks cost less then $150 for all 8GB so what thousands mate?

[TerryP]

Some rough estimates:

2x Q9450 CPU = $600
6-8x PC2-5300 ECC = $200-$300
2x high end graphics cards (comparable to GF7800/8600), each capable of dual heads = $280~$400
2x 19" LCD = $400
2x 17" LCD = $320~$380
2x DVD Burner = $40-$50
1x CD Burner = $20
1x 3.5" Floppy = $15
1x Standard keyboard = ~$20
1x 5b Laser mouse = $35~$50
4x 250GB Seagate SATA drives = $200-$250
= $2100~$2200 budget

+ one mother of a motherboard, + case (or learn to build own), + strong power supply, + extra fans/cooling needs, + chair, + circular desk of desired type (or build own) to support my working environment.

something like that anyway, is what I dream of for "Project Esmeralda" ....

[vermaden]

2x Q9450 CPU

I have a quad core CPU and for most of the time I just cant use all the cores, I am able to do that only with Xen with several OSes at a time, IMHO 4 cores are currently more then enought, also Q6600 is cheaper and has bigger ratio (9x) so it will overclock easier, TDP is the same as for Q9450.

... and by the way, Intel Qxxxx series quad core CPU cannot be used in SMP setup, you will have to use a Xeon XPU here

The only exception here is Intel Skulltrail platform with 2 x Q9770, each for $1000 + mobo for more then $500.

2x high end graphics cards (comparable to GF7800/8600), each capable of dual heads.

IMHO anything better then 9600GSO 768MB is lost money, especially SLI setup, I would consider ATI 4850 but there is no FreeBSD driver so ...

2x DVD Burner
1x CD Burner

2 x DVDRW will be ok, but what that CDRW for?

4x 250GB Seagate SATA drives

Poor Seagate 7200 drives?

I am disappointed mate

Havent you heard of WD VelociRaptor (300GB | SATA | 16MB Cache | 10,000 RPM).

See here how fast it is: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

... but I would go for SSDs anyway: SSD performance

something like that anyway, is what I dream of for "Project Esmeralda" ...

Pretty nice but you will not use even 30% of that horsepower on daily basis, but maybe wou will find a cat that is amused

[DrJ]

I agree with Vermaden, you have an odd list, TerryP. Eight cores is worthwhile only if you are doing tasks that can easily be parallelized, like rendering, numerical simulations, CAD/CAM in general, and a few other specialized areas. It really is way overkill for most things.

I've built a couple of Q6600 systems, and they overclock to 3GHz very easily. With attention to cooling, they can be nearly silent. They work very well, and really are more than most people need.

The only thing they should have, which is now starting to move more into the market, is ECC memory and greater memory capacity. The new boards can take 16GB memory, though you need 4GB modules. More would take Xeons, so that you can use registered memory, usually as FB-DIMMs.

Or you could use something like the Supermicro X7DCA-L, which uses regular ECC/Reg memory, and can take 24GB memory. No quad pumped memory, though.

I'm fine with 32 bit systems for now. There are just too many holes in 64-bit FreeBSD at the moment, including video drivers and the things that vermaden mentioned. My computers all have about 3GB memory, and so far that has been plenty.

I am getting into some heavy-duty numerical calculations, though, so I probably will put an 8 or more core system together, with about 64GB memory. Owing to the software bundle I need for that work, that would probably run Vista or its server version if there are more than 2 physical CPUs. That box will run about $6-8K, but the software will cost about $20K. So the hardware is not really the issue. It is cheap in comparison.

[TerryP]

Well, not that any of this is on topic... but since you asked.

(I feel most of this belongs in pm's btw, not here)

Originally Posted by vermaden

Pretty nice but you will not use even 30% of that horsepower on daily basis, but maybe wou will find a cat that is amused

Originally Posted by DrJ

I agree with Vermaden, you have an odd list, TerryP. Eight cores is worthwhile only if you are doing tasks that can easily be parallelized, like rendering, numerical simulations, CAD/CAM in general, and a few other specialized areas. It really is way overkill for most things.

I don't need that much computing power and don't know anyone who does outside the world of science. But then again, I don't really need a computer with even the 384MB of PC100 and a 500Mhz P3 I used to use for an nfs/mysql server --- most of my needs could be solved with a typewriter and a telephone. but I much prefer a computer ;-)


A work load for me on the computer is fairly light and has been getting lighter these days, the other day my peak abuse to my windows machine was: 2 web browsers (flock and google chrome) across 4 windows, and about 14 tabs. With flash plugin streaming music, XChat, Pidgin (6 accounts), XFire, Teamspeak, two runs of gvim, a few console/cmd.exe windows, working on php scripts, and 'background' stuff that's always on but rarely used running.

Even with a Pentium D 930 and 2GB of DDR, the machine didn't blink. However doing all of this and compiling large things (e.g. world or full gcc4) might put a wee bit of a dent in that, since my much slower laptop can't handle the added load without swapping. I once tried testing Netbeans 6.1 on my FreeBSD laptop, on top of my normal work load... It was at least 10 minutes before my system was as responsive as normal, before that it was straining quite hard and (for what they are worth, since I don't rely on it for accuracy) top wa reporting a lot of extra resource usage.


I don't expect a 64-bit OS, 8 cores, and a crap load of RAM to help with the way I use computers, as much as a quad of monitors and a second brain would... If I could, I'd have a circle like desk with monitors arranged almost in a panorama, with a keyboard, cup holder, and a mouse bolted onto my swivel chairs arms (and slinding out to let me out of the chair). But I hate wireless peripherals and can't afford it! But I like a computer that is responsive, even when pushed hard.

But hey, if you've got to dream, may as well dream about a very sexy lady ;-)

Originally Posted by vermaden

... and by the way, Intel Qxxxx series quad core CPU cannot be used in SMP setup, you will have to use a Xeon XPU here

Nuts !

Originally Posted by vermaden

2 x DVDRW will be ok, but what that CDRW for?

I am paranoid, so it is an emergency spare lol.


I've heard about such hard drives as the WD VelociRaptor, but they just don't seem worth the cost to me. The only time any of my 7200rpm hard drives has been to slow, writing large files -- and I don't mind that. A quad of 250gb drives in RAID 4 would be more to my taste, although I'm not sure if I would enjoy using RAID as much as implementing an automated backup.



And I don't believe in overclocking hardware, just making it work hard around the clock.

[vermaden]

Originally Posted by TerryP

Even with a Pentium D 930 and 2GB of DDR, the machine didn't blink.

Pentium D uses NetBurst architecture which is one big fail unfortunelly (way too long execution pipeline), so even two cores of fail is still fail

IMHO there is nothing wrong with quad core CPU for power workstation, apps got hungry these days, but anything more then that is just too expensive if you really do not need the horsepower, like Xeons for example.

I also like AMD's approach here with tri core Phenom X3 which is very cheap at the same time.

Originally Posted by TerryP

I once tried testing Netbeans 6.1 on my FreeBSD laptop, on top of my normal work load...

Java ... one word, so many screams

BTW, how much RAM/CPU that laptop had?

Originally Posted by TerryP

I don't expect a 64-bit OS, 8 cores, and a crap load of RAM to help with the way I use computers, as much as a quad of monitors and a second brain would... If I could, I'd have a circle like desk with monitors arranged almost in a panorama, with a keyboard, cup holder, and a mouse bolted onto my swivel chairs arms (and slinding out to let me out of the chair). But I hate wireless peripherals and can't afford it! But I like a computer that is responsive, even when pushed hard.

You can use your CDRW as a cup holder.

IMHO 3 monitors setup is more then enought, 4 would be a crowd.

Originally Posted by TerryP

But hey, if you've got to dream, may as well dream about a very sexy lady ;-)

I know what you mean mate, "If you are going to steal, steal millions... If you are going to fsck, fsck a princess."

Originally Posted by TerryP

And I don't believe in overclocking hardware, just making it work hard around the clock.

Me neither, but I will not pay more for things that I can have for free then ...

[s2scott]

I've been using XEN EXPRESS and, more recently, ESXi as 64-bit hypervisors. Then 64- and 32-bit guest o/s variously.

/S

[s2scott]

Originally Posted by vermaden

I... and by the way, Intel Qxxxx series quad core CPU cannot be used in SMP setup, you will have to use a Xeon XPU here

intel 3000-series xeons (http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ifications.htm) are single-socket only variants of the xeon line and priced really well.

And while there are other oem motherboards, intel and intel chipsets are the most compatible when it comes to XEN and ESXi support, I use these entry-level mb (http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/prodbrief/317899.pdf).

Toronto-area pricing (3Q2008), I can do hassle-free server-grade mb+quad-core-cpu for under CAD$600, taxes in.

/S

[vermaden]

Originally Posted by s2scott

intel and intel chipsets are the most compatible when it comes to XEN and ESXi support

AMD CPUs are better suited for virtualization mate, Intel CPUs does not support Netsted Page Tables while AMD's does, also AMD IOMMU for I/O virtualization is already there in AMD CPUs/chipsets while Intel VT-d is only in their Q35 chipset (and propably some more server like chipsets) but that depends on the chipset I think.

Not mentioning that Intel still does not have IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) in CPU while AMD has it since 2003.

AMD K10/Barcelona based Opterons/Phenoms are a lot better suited for virtualization then any Intel CPU.

This will change as Intel Nehalem will arrive which includes both NPT and IMC along with HTT, but it hasnt been released yet ... and it will not be cheap.

[phoenix]

Home machines are all 32-bit hardware (AMD AthlonMP, Intel P4, Intel Celeron, Intel P4-m, Intel P3), thus all are running 32-bit OSes (WinXP, FreeBSD, soon OpenSuSE).

Work desktops are both 32-bit hardware (AMP Sempron, Intel P4) running 32-bit OSes (Debian Linux, WinXP).

Work servers are mostly 64-bit hardware (AMD Opteron) running 64-bit OSes (Debian Linux, FreeBSD). Some run 32-bit. Mostly depends on what the server is doing, and whether it has more than 4 GB of RAM.

[s2scott]

I wrote,

Originally Posted by s2scott

...intel and intel chipsets are the most compatible

You wrote,

Originally Posted by vermaden

AMD CPUs are better suited for virtualization mate

Think we're both right per our separate points :-)

The boards/chipsets I cited are, from a hypervisor experience, rather hassle-free, and build/run from the stock install/build media without having to shoehorn in drivers and patches.

That said, vermaden, which AMD-based motherboard boards/chipsets do you favor in the sub-$600 combination for a rock-stable, popping good XEN EXPRESS/ESXi host?

Sincerly, I need to build a couple of these next week and would love to try something with your cited benefits.

Thanks,
/Scott