From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Date: | 2006-06-13 02:51:42 |
Message-ID: | 87zmghzs1t.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when armtuk(at)gmail(dot)com ("Alex Turner") wrote:
> Anyone who has tried x86-64 linux knows what a royal pain in the ass
> it is. They didn't do anything sensible, like just make the whole
> OS 64 bit, no, they had to split it up, and put 64-bit libs in a new
> directory /lib64. This means that a great many applications don't
> know to check in there for libs, and don't compile pleasantly, php
> is one among them. I forget what others, it's been awhile now. Of
> course if you actualy want to use more than 4gig RAM in a pleasant
> way, it's pretty much essential. Alex.
That's absolute nonsense.
I have been running the Debian AMD64 port since I can't recall when.
I have experienced NO such issues.
Packages simply install, in most cases.
When I do need to compile things, they *do* compile pleasantly.
I seem to recall hearing there being "significant issues" as to how
Red Hat's distributions of Linux coped with AMD64. That's not a
problem with Linux, of course...
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/spreadsheets.html
"Imagine a law so stupid that civil obedience becomes an efficient way
to fighting it" --Per Abrahamsen on the DMCA
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-06-13 02:57:32 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-13 02:44:01 | Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards? |