Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4634 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] unable to access website after 10.2 install [CLUE!]
  • From: Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:38:21 -0800
  • Message-id: <200612191638.21902.rschulz@xxxxxxxxx>
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 15:49, John Andersen wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 14:28, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > Why on earth must you be so rude?
>
> Pot/Kettle.

Compounding the offense by accusing me of being rude.


> But it wasn't my intent.

What, then?


> > And how, exactly, is the kernel that's running my system just
> > fine, "wrong?"
>
> Its not the native kernel for that hardware.

The hardware is equally i386 and x86_64. A 32-bit kernel is every bit
as "native" as a 64-bit one.


> As for your theory, a quick look at the clock times
> will reveal that the 64bit registers load in the same number
> of clocks as the 32. And the 64bit address registers, pointer
> registers, etc also load in the same number of clocks as the 32 bit
> registers. So moving stuff around in memory is faster doing so in
> 64bit chunks.

It's not about the processor, OK? It's about how much demand 64-bit
everything places on the memory subsystem. Why fetch and store so many
64-bit quantities that don't make any use of the upper 32 bits? It's
all a big waste of memory bandwidth.


> The reason for 64bit processors is NOT simply address space.

If one has no need for 64 bit anything, it's all a waste.


> Drive controllers move data to memory at what ever speed and chunk
> size they are designed to use, but your access to that data in 32bit
> chunks that take just as long to load as 64bit chunks is slower
> because it takes more clocks.

Driver controllers are DMA. The processor is not involved in each
individual data word transfered.


> Look, I've done this exact same thing, loaded the i386 kernel on a
> Pentium D (also a 64bit dual well processor, in spite of the Pentium
> name).

Why would results for an ancient Pentium-D imply anything for a Core 2
Duo, which is an entirely different implementation of the x86
architecture?


> Since it was a new server with no mission data installed I
> re-installed using the correct kernel, and it was significantly
> faster with the 64bit kernel.

Which leaves us with the original accusation--that I made a 32/64
choice. I just stuck the disc in and installed.


> I did not bench long running applications, or time long compiles,
> just running yast, kde, and some database loading. Since it runs at
> init 3 most of the time the 32bit would have worked, and might
> have gone un-noticed. But it was faster launching applications
> in 64bit, and the time to load the sql database from raw files
> was also faster, 37 minutes compared to 52.

I don't care about those things. I care about CPU-intensive symbolic
computations for which 64-bit words, including every single memory
address, are dragging around 32 bits of useless zeroes.

OK?


RRS
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >