On 2014-03-14 08:30, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2014-03-13 15:29, Per Jessen wrote:
But surely pointers can not be the larger part of the needed storage, is it?
I agree it seems unlikely, but because everything has to accomodate a 64bit address, the stack is also suddenly twice as big, for instance.
Oh, the stack, right... You can not "push" a byte.
With a few processes it's no big deal, but 32bit I can run a lot more processes per system than with 64bit.
Well, if you have tried the experiment both ways, and the memory footprint is bigger, then obviously I believe you :-)
You can also observe it yourself if you have two systems to compare.
I don't see a way I could have that many postfix processes in a virtual machine :-) I have always "felt" that 64 bit systems used more memory than the 32 bit equivalent. But I thought it was bad coding mostly. I didn't think about the stack, though. That there are things that you simply can not code smaller. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)