Vladimir Ivashchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:33:30PM +0100, Tru Huynh wrote:
CentOS 5.2, 2.6.18-92.1.22.el5PAE, sata_mv. Two dual-core Opterons @ 2.8
Ghz, 16 GB RAM.
any reason for using the 32 bits version instead of the 64 bits?
you must also be aware of http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-15593
just my .2 cents
Always welcome :)
According to http://epubs.cclrc.ac.uk/bitstream/2943/ThumperReport.pdf, x4500 was shown to be unstable under centos/rhel 4.x (he didn't
use mv_sata though). In any case, centos 4.x is way too old.
I changed the kernel to 2.6.27.12-78.2.8.fc9.i686 and so far it is stable.
x64 will be the next step. i686 is what our guys install by default, I didn't bother to reinstall it.
In spite of the theoretical benefits of 64 bit, I find that the
advantages are "measurable but not noticeable" for most things. The lack
of 64 bit versions of some applications was a problem for me, but may
not be for you. I did find that even building from source not all
applications worked right, or worked at all, or in some cases compiled. :-(
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still
be valid when the war is over..." Otto von Bismark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
