Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:43:36 +0800 From: orc <orc@...server.ru> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 0.9.3 released On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:31:12 +0800 orc <orc@...server.ru> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:22:20 -0400 > Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: > > > If I were going to switch to x86_64 cpu, which I will probably do in > > the next few years, x32 would certainly be appealing. Not decided > > for sure, but it seems very nice to get all the important benefits > > of a 64-bit cpu with none of the bloat. > > Somewhat bloated, but not so much. Often I see only that massive apps > like web browsers eat much of RAM usually. 2G usually enough for me to > run 3-4 qemu-kvm's and bloated Firefox 12 (eats about 700M usually, > critical was 1G and 100M swap, 1 month of it's uptime). Now I use 4G > (additional 2G is for tmpfs. I like to store large blobs in /tmp > often). I use x86_64 for 3 years without any problems. If Firefox (or > any application of same class, chromium probably) will continue to > grow, then five or seven years will be enough to make x32 be obsoleted > (compared with ff3, it's maximum memusage was 300M, and for 3.6 it was > 400M). > > > > > (someone can note that 2G is too overkill, but I don't care) Also, does x32 run on plain x86_64? If it does, then probably that large apps like Firefox can be compiled and run in that mode can have benefits. If it is required that you must run only x32 kernel, then I see no it's benefits currently. It will be much easier to run plain 32 bits Firefox.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.