Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 11:04 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>
>>> Stack size was only a problem for the 32 bit OS and not 64 bit. If one
>>> is dealing with a terabyte or more of data, I don't see them using a 32 bit
>>> OS.
>>>
>> Huh;
>>
>> /dev/mapper/Raid5-Media
>> 3.3T 3.1T 216G 94% /Media
>>
>> % uname -sr
>> Linux 2.6.18-194.3.1.el5PAE
>>
>>
>>> I really don't see any really good reasons for using anything but 64 bit
>>> any more, if the hardware supports it.
>>>
>> I don't find the RedHat 32bit/64bit split to be as clean as it should be
>> (definitely messy when compared to Solaris). When it comes to needing to
>> install 32bit and 64bit versions of the same program (eg perl 'cos you
>> only have 32bit binary libraries from vendors) it gets a little hairy.
>> And then Oracle really starts to get antsy on you.
>>
>> As a result, when I first installed CentOS 5 I stuck with 32bit because
>> it was more stable. After all, my memory footprint is only around
>> 200Mb on this machine; the rest is cache!
>>
>
> The kernel and user apps are pretty much different things. You can run
> a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit apps if you want. But the issue with a
> 32-bit kernel besides what it can provide as a process address space is
> that at least the way RH and CentOS build it, it uses 4k stacks which
> may not be enough for some xfs operations.
>
>
Are you saying here that I can take a system that has been installed
from a 32 bit distribution and simply replace the kernel with a 64 bit
kernel?
Thanks,
Nataraj
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
