32 bit software on 64 bit
Hi, I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules I will install oracle on this server... any suggestion?? Thanks --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site!
On Mon, 30 May 2005 03:37:57 -0700 (PDT) "Mohammad N. Tina" <mohammad_tina@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi, I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules
I will install oracle on this server... SLES 9 supports 64-bit systems. You can install a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit X86-64 (eg. AMD64 or Intel EM64T), but you will not achieve any benefits of being 64-bits. Oracle also supports the 64-bit environment.
If you load a 32-bit Linux on a x86-64 system, all your systems running under that OS will be 32-bit. If you load a 64-bit OS, then you can run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. You especially want the database at 64-bits because of the significantly larger linear address space. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
Hi,
I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules
I will install oracle on this server..
If the specs say that the chips are 32-bit, then stay with the 32-bit OS. 64-bit won't work well or at all.
- James W.
On Monday 30 May 2005 7:26 am, James Wright wrote:
Hi,
I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules
I will install oracle on this server..
If the specs say that the chips are 32-bit, then stay with the 32-bit OS. 64-bit won't work well or at all.
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get. Scott -- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.11.4-20a-default x86_64
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
On Monday 30 May 2005 7:26 am, James Wright wrote:
Hi,
I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules
I will install oracle on this server..
If the specs say that the chips are 32-bit, then stay with the 32-bit OS. 64-bit won't work well or at all.
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998 "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." -Ernst Jan Plugge
On Monday 30 May 2005 7:44 am, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
On Monday 30 May 2005 7:26 am, James Wright wrote:
Hi,
I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit I continued the installtion with no problem...but should i use the EMT64T( i tried it did not give this message but there alot of errors loading modules
I will install oracle on this server..
If the specs say that the chips are 32-bit, then stay with the 32-bit OS. 64-bit won't work well or at all.
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's.
Ahh, you are correct. Old age is catching up with me <g>. Scott -- POPFile, the OpenSource EMail Classifier http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ Linux 2.6.11.4-20a-default x86_64
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ken Schneider <suse-list@bout-tyme.net> wrote:-
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's.
SuSE only shipped double sided DVDs with 9.0 and 9.1. From 9.2 they swapped to using dual layered instead. Regards, David Bolt -- Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 63 Mnodes/s: http://www.distributed.net/ AMD 1800 1Gb WinXP/SuSE 9.3 | AMD 2400 160Mb SuSE 8.1 | AMD 2400 256Mb SuSE 9.0 AMD 1300 512Mb SuSE 9.0 | Falcon 14Mb TOS 4.02 | STE 4Mb TOS 1.62 RPC600 129Mb RISCOS 3.6 | A3010 4Mb RISCOS 3.11 | A4000 4Mb RISCOS 3.11
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 14:07, David Bolt wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ken Schneider <suse-list@bout-tyme.net> wrote:-
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's.
SuSE only shipped double sided DVDs with 9.0 and 9.1. From 9.2 they swapped to using dual layered instead.
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 14:07, David Bolt wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ken Schneider <suse-list@bout-tyme.net> wrote:-
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's. SuSE only shipped double sided DVDs with 9.0 and 9.1. From 9.2 they swapped to using dual layered instead.
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
A DVD drive.
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 8:50 am, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
A DVD drive. The DVDs are multi-layer not double sided. All you need is a DVD drive capable of reading multi-layer DVDs. I just bought a Samsung DVD-R/RW drive for $55 US (with a $50 rebate). My old drive was strictly a SCSI CD burner, and the SCSI card is not supported under the 2.6 kernel (actually, no one updated the driver). The Samsung drive was detected by SuSE 9.2 with no problem, and since I can not boot from a multi-layer DVD, I can install SuSE 9.3 when I have some time. Previously I would copy the DVD image to the HD over the network and install from HD. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 08:50, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 14:07, David Bolt wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Ken Schneider <suse-list@bout-tyme.net> wrote:-
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:31 -0700, Scott Leighton wrote:
The CD may have 32 bit on one side and 64 bit on the other, I know that 9.1 and 9.2 shipped that way. If you install the 32 bit side on a 64 bit machine, that's the message you will get.
I believe it was the DVD that was doubled sided, not the CD's. SuSE only shipped double sided DVDs with 9.0 and 9.1. From 9.2 they swapped to using dual layered instead.
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
A DVD drive.
Not to be trite James, but I have an old DVD drive. I'm curious as to whether I'll have to use the CD's to install if my old Sony cannot read the new style DVD.
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Mike McMullin <mwmcmlln@mnsi.net> wrote:-
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 08:50, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
A DVD drive.
Not to be trite James, but I have an old DVD drive. I'm curious as to whether I'll have to use the CD's to install if my old Sony cannot read the new style DVD.
They aren't new style at all as the dual layered disc format was a part of the DVD specs from the start, and any DVD drive with the DVD logo should be able to easily read them. If the drive can't read them then it is faulty, either through not being compliant with the DVD spec, or because the hardware is broken. Regards, David Bolt -- Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 63 Mnodes/s: http://www.distributed.net/ AMD 1800 1Gb WinXP/SuSE 9.3 | AMD 2400 160Mb SuSE 8.1 | AMD 2400 256Mb SuSE 9.0 AMD 1300 512Mb SuSE 9.0 | Falcon 14Mb TOS 4.02 | STE 4Mb TOS 1.62 RPC600 129Mb RISCOS 3.6 | A3010 4Mb RISCOS 3.11 | A4000 4Mb RISCOS 3.11
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 13:46, David Bolt wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Mike McMullin <mwmcmlln@mnsi.net> wrote:-
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 08:50, James Knott wrote:
Mike McMullin wrote:
Just exactly what is required to read these new DVDs?
A DVD drive.
Not to be trite James, but I have an old DVD drive. I'm curious as to whether I'll have to use the CD's to install if my old Sony cannot read the new style DVD.
They aren't new style at all as the dual layered disc format was a part of the DVD specs from the start, and any DVD drive with the DVD logo should be able to easily read them. If the drive can't read them then it is faulty, either through not being compliant with the DVD spec, or because the hardware is broken.
Please see my reply to William Gallant on thread: Re: remastering suse 9.3 DVD
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 1:46 pm, David Bolt wrote:
They aren't new style at all as the dual layered disc format was a part of the DVD specs from the start, and any DVD drive with the DVD logo should be able to easily read them. If the drive can't read them then it is faulty, either through not being compliant with the DVD spec, or because the hardware is broken. While the multi-layered format may have been part of the DVD spec from the start, many older DVD readers could not read the multi-layered DVD. Neither my laptop nor my wife's desktop systems can read it, and I have encountered a number of other older systems that were unable to read it. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> wrote:-
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 1:46 pm, David Bolt wrote:
They aren't new style at all as the dual layered disc format was a part of the DVD specs from the start, and any DVD drive with the DVD logo should be able to easily read them. If the drive can't read them then it is faulty, either through not being compliant with the DVD spec, or because the hardware is broken. While the multi-layered format may have been part of the DVD spec from the start, many older DVD readers could not read the multi-layered DVD.
Then they are broken[0].
Neither my laptop nor my wife's desktop systems can read it, and I have encountered a number of other older systems that were unable to read it.
As it was a requirement that DVD drives should be able to read dual layered discs, you have broken hardware[0]. The same goes for the other DVD drives that have a difficulty in reading dual layered discs. Just in case you haven't seen it, in the thread "remastering suse 9.3 DVD" William Gallafent posted about this fact[1]. Here's the link he included: <URL:http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.18> [0] It might not be broken. The laser could be having a difficulty reading the disc because it needs to be cleaned. If the drive still fails to read them after cleaning, it's broken. [1] If you have a difficulty in finding it, the message-ID is <200505311712.48841.william@gallaf.net> and it should be archived as message number 238016. Regards, David Bolt -- Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 63 Mnodes/s: http://www.distributed.net/ AMD 1800 1Gb WinXP/SuSE 9.3 | AMD 2400 160Mb SuSE 8.1 | AMD 2400 256Mb SuSE 9.0 AMD 1300 512Mb SuSE 9.0 | Falcon 14Mb TOS 4.02 | STE 4Mb TOS 1.62 RPC600 129Mb RISCOS 3.6 | A3010 4Mb RISCOS 3.11 | A4000 4Mb RISCOS 3.11
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> wrote:-
On Tuesday 31 May 2005 1:46 pm, David Bolt wrote:
They aren't new style at all as the dual layered disc format was a part of the DVD specs from the start, and any DVD drive with the DVD logo should be able to easily read them. If the drive can't read them then it is faulty, either through not being compliant with the DVD spec, or because the hardware is broken. While the multi-layered format may have been part of the DVD spec from the start, many older DVD readers could not read the multi-layered DVD.
Then they are broken[0].
Neither my laptop nor my wife's desktop systems can read it, and I have encountered a number of other older systems that were unable to read it.
As it was a requirement that DVD drives should be able to read dual layered discs, you have broken hardware[0]. The same goes for the other DVD drives that have a difficulty in reading dual layered discs.
Just in case you haven't seen it, in the thread "remastering suse 9.3 DVD" William Gallafent posted about this fact[1]. Here's the link he included:
<URL:http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.18>
[0] It might not be broken. The laser could be having a difficulty reading the disc because it needs to be cleaned. If the drive still fails to read them after cleaning, it's broken.
[1] If you have a difficulty in finding it, the message-ID is <200505311712.48841.william@gallaf.net> and it should be archived as message number 238016. The 1997 DVD specification called for a 4.7GB (DVD-5) data capacity however it did talk about dual layer (DVD-9). My point is that some
On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:16:10 +0100 David Bolt <fhfr-yva-r@davjam.org> wrote: older DVD ROM drives did not ever have the capability to read the dual layer DVDs. I'm not sure when DVDs with dual-layer capacity started tpo be included with PCS. Both of my DVD readers (my laptop and wife's computer) were build before 2000. -- Jerry Feldman <gaf@blu.org> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 02:10, Jerry Feldman wrote:
The 1997 DVD specification called for a 4.7GB (DVD-5) data capacity however it did talk about dual layer (DVD-9). My point is that some older DVD ROM drives did not ever have the capability to read the dual layer DVDs. I'm not sure when DVDs with dual-layer capacity started tpo be included with PCS. Both of my DVD readers (my laptop and wife's computer) were build before 2000.
This is a quote from the rec.video.dvd FAQ published in February 2000 <quote> All DVD players and drives can read dual-layer discs -- it's required by the spec. All players and drives also play double-sided discs if you flip them over. No manufacturer has announced a model that will play both sides. The added cost is probably not justifiable since discs can hold over 4 hours of video on one side by using two layers. (Early discs used two sides because dual-layer production was not widely supported. This should no longer be a problem.) Pioneer LD/DVD players can play both sides of an LD, but not a DVD. (See 2.12 for note on reading both sides simultaneously.) </quote> This is from the alt.video.dvd from 1996 (the year the spec was made, btw, not 1997) http://www.dtvgroup.com/comdex/DVD/Robert/dvdfaq.html#1.18 <quote> [1.18] When will double-sided or dual-layer discs appear? Will they work in all players? Soon. Some replicators plan to produce double-sided discs, dual-layer discs, and double-dual discs from day one. Obviously the prices will be higher, but certain producers already require more space than is available on a single side or single layer. All players will play dual-layer discs -- it's required. </quote> I can't seem to find the actual spec to quote though, but these sources seem relatively authoritative
On Monday 30 May 2005 04:37, Mohammad N. Tina wrote:
Hi, I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit
From Dell's description of the powerEdge 1850: High performance for today and the future - Dual Xeon processors with EM64T support, teamed with DDR-2 Memory and PCI Express deliver outstanding performance for today's 32-bit applications as well as tomorrow's 64-bit applications. So, yes, you got a 64 bit machine. Carlos
On Monday 30 May 2005 09:27, Carlos F. Lange wrote:
On Monday 30 May 2005 04:37, Mohammad N. Tina wrote:
Hi, I have Dell powerEdge 1850, with dual processor 3.6 GHz, I bought SLE 9.0 and used the x86 CD when installtion starts i got a message " you are installing 32 bit software on 64 bit computer" to my knowledge the specs are for 32 bit
From Dell's description of the powerEdge 1850: High performance for today and the future - Dual Xeon processors with EM64T support, teamed with DDR-2 Memory and PCI Express deliver outstanding performance for today's 32-bit applications as well as tomorrow's 64-bit applications.
So, yes, you got a 64 bit machine.
Carlos Hi,
You should probably consider SUSE 9.3 64bit install. The INTEL EM64T is their equvilent of the AMD ATHLON64 package. PeterB
On 5/30/05, Carlos F. Lange <carlos.lange@ualberta.ca> wrote:
From Dell's description of the powerEdge 1850: High performance for today and the future - Dual Xeon processors with EM64T support, teamed with DDR-2 Memory and PCI Express deliver outstanding performance for today's 32-bit applications as well as tomorrow's 64-bit applications.
So, yes, you got a 64 bit machine.
Does this not mean the the box *can* support 64-bit CPU's (in future) and that you can then run 64-bit apps (tomorrow), but today it is 32-bit? The wording kind of sounds like you would be able to run 64-bit apps on it in the future. Sounds like a lot of marketing mumbo-jumbo. -- Andre Truter | Software Engineer | Registered Linux user #185282 ICQ #40935899 | AIM: trusoftzaf | http://www.trusoft.za.org ~ A dinosaur is a salamander designed to Mil Spec ~
On Monday 30 May 2005 08:55, Andre Truter wrote:
On 5/30/05, Carlos F. Lange <carlos.lange@ualberta.ca> wrote:
From Dell's description of the powerEdge 1850: High performance for today and the future - Dual Xeon processors with EM64T support, teamed with DDR-2 Memory and PCI Express deliver outstanding performance for today's 32-bit applications as well as tomorrow's 64-bit applications.
So, yes, you got a 64 bit machine.
Does this not mean the the box *can* support 64-bit CPU's (in future) and that you can then run 64-bit apps (tomorrow), but today it is 32-bit?
The wording kind of sounds like you would be able to run 64-bit apps on it in the future.
Sounds like a lot of marketing mumbo-jumbo.
No. It is MSWindows perspective of the world. Through their distorted glasses (or windows) 64 bit software is still in the future... CFL
participants (12)
-
Anders Johansson -
Andre Truter -
Carlos F. Lange -
David Bolt -
James Knott -
James Wright -
Jerry Feldman -
Ken Schneider -
Mike McMullin -
Mohammad N. Tina -
Peter B Van Campen -
Scott Leighton