1:38 a.m.
Dear all
I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1] ,
My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ? is there any
significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
[1]
Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT enabled )
RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
6:57 a.m.
On 11/04/2009 05:01 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox<alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
|> Any software that can make use of more than 3 GB of virtual memory space
|> will benefit from a 64 bit install. This could be something like the
|
| Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| of RAM.
Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox
6:49 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 07:43 -0500, David wrote:
On 11/4/2009 6:14 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 03:58 +1100, Roger wrote:
>> Were I in your position I would opt for 32 bit install the software
>> and just 'use' the computer. In truth you probably will install 64
>> bit and all the discussion is merely opinions.
>
When I built my first x86_64 box several years ago I immediately
installed an x86_64 Fedora OS and software. With the needed x86 software
and libraries mixed in as dealt with by the Fedora system. I never
'fought' the system. Whatever 'Fedora' wanted to do I did. I have had
none of the problems that some have mentioned. None. Ever.
You bought the hardware why not use it?
+1
Very few problems with 64 bit over 5 years
John
6:43 a.m.
On 11/4/2009 6:14 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 03:58 +1100, Roger wrote:
> Were I in your position I would opt for 32 bit install the software
> and just 'use' the computer. In truth you probably will install 64
> bit and all the discussion is merely opinions.
My laptop supposedly supports 64 bit computing, but I installed 32 bit
software, seeing as (at the time) people were stating all sorts of
issues with using 64 bits for some of the things that I was already
doing on 32 bits, without any troubles. For example, getting Flash to
work on websites, or using sound (I seem to recall an issue with some
sound cards, and 64 bits).
Given some time for experimentation, and a new computer (i.e. one
without anything I needed to keep on it), I'd be tempted to do a 64 bit
install, and see how it worked with the things that I wanted to do.
Then, it'd be an easy case to wipe off and install 32 bit software, if
it was a dismal failure, or just keep on using 64 bit software if I
couldn't see a problem with it.
Having a fresh computer is an ideal time to try it both ways, and decide
for yourself, based on your own needs and experiences.
When I built my first x86_64 box several years ago I immediately
installed an x86_64 Fedora OS and software. With the needed x86 software
and libraries mixed in as dealt with by the Fedora system. I never
'fought' the system. Whatever 'Fedora' wanted to do I did. I have had
none of the problems that some have mentioned. None. Ever.
You bought the hardware why not use it?
--
David
5:14 a.m.
On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 03:58 +1100, Roger wrote:
Were I in your position I would opt for 32 bit install the software
and just 'use' the computer. In truth you probably will install 64
bit and all the discussion is merely opinions.
My laptop supposedly supports 64 bit computing, but I installed 32 bit
software, seeing as (at the time) people were stating all sorts of
issues with using 64 bits for some of the things that I was already
doing on 32 bits, without any troubles. For example, getting Flash to
work on websites, or using sound (I seem to recall an issue with some
sound cards, and 64 bits).
Given some time for experimentation, and a new computer (i.e. one
without anything I needed to keep on it), I'd be tempted to do a 64 bit
install, and see how it worked with the things that I wanted to do.
Then, it'd be an easy case to wipe off and install 32 bit software, if
it was a dismal failure, or just keep on using 64 bit software if I
couldn't see a problem with it.
Having a fresh computer is an ideal time to try it both ways, and decide
for yourself, based on your own needs and experiences.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
4:49 a.m.
On 04Nov2009 09:56, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:22:22 +1100
| Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> wrote:
| > On 04Nov2009 14:01, I wrote:
| > | On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| > | | Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| > | | of RAM. [...]
| > | I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
| > | why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system. [...]
| If you have more than 1GB of memory then the kernel in 32bit mode has to
| do extra work because it needs to maintain access to both virtual
| mappings and physical mappings
|
| Normally 32bit memory is laid out as
|
| [0-3GB] User application address mapping (as the user space sees it)
| [3G-3.xG] Mapping of almost 1GB RAM of physical ram
| [3.xG-4G] Vmalloc/io mappings/etc
|
| which takes all the 4GB. To support > 1GB of RAM the kernel has to create
| and destroy mmu mappings and access them indirectly which has a big cost.
|
| In 64bit mode there is plenty of space for all the application and
| mappings of main memory so that isn't required.
Thank you! Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
Like dogs and muggers, transistors can sense fear. - Norman Yarvin
3:56 a.m.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:22:22 +1100
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> wrote:
On 04Nov2009 14:01, I wrote:
| On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| | Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| | of RAM.
|
| Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
| I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
| why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system. [...]
BTW, I found this:
http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=93648&catid=317
which is interesting but doesn't give me much clue about why the kernel
might like it.
If you have more than 1GB of memory then the kernel in 32bit mode has to
do extra work because it needs to maintain access to both virtual
mappings and physical mappings
Normally 32bit memory is laid out as
[0-3GB] User application address mapping (as the user space sees it)
[3G-3.xG] Mapping of almost 1GB RAM of physical ram
[3.xG-4G] Vmalloc/io mappings/etc
which takes all the 4GB. To support > 1GB of RAM the kernel has to create
and destroy mmu mappings and access them indirectly which has a big cost.
In 64bit mode there is plenty of space for all the application and
mappings of main memory so that isn't required.
Alan
6:58 a.m.
Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/04/2009 05:01 AM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox<alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> |> Any software that can make use of more than 3 GB of virtual memory
> space
> |> will benefit from a 64 bit install. This could be something like the
> |
> | Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over
> 1GB
> | of RAM.
>
> Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cox
Congratulations. Really wonderful reply. :-)
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
6:56 a.m.
Chris Adams wrote:
On a 64-bit system, all of physical memory can be mapped into the
kernel
address space at all times.
Also, x86_64 has a larger CPU register set, which can speed up some
operations.
Also, applications are always compiled for SSE on x86_64 as that is
not an optional feature of the hardware, so it can be assumed to be
always present.
--
Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
1:42 a.m.
On 11/04/2009 11:13 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote:
> I’d also advise the Original Poster to consider whether he might ever
> upgrade this laptop.
>
Jatin K wrote:
> Not in near future .... as I got it just before 4 days
>
But are you prepared to say “never”? Upgrades from 32 bit to 64 bit
aren’t supported, and are considerably harder than a normal upgrade.
If you go 32 bit now, you’ll have to do a reinstall to go 64 bit.
I'm going to have new notebook ... so I have to have Install fresh copy
... either 32bit or 64bit ....( no need to upgrade from 32 to 64 bit )
James.
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
12:33 p.m.
James Wilkinson wrote:
I wrote:
> I’d also advise the Original Poster to consider whether he might ever
> upgrade this laptop.
>
Jatin K wrote:
> Not in near future .... as I got it just before 4 days
>
But are you prepared to say “never”? Upgrades from 32 bit to 64 bit
aren’t supported, and are considerably harder than a normal upgrade.
If you go 32 bit now, you’ll have to do a reinstall to go 64 bit.
James.
That depends on a number of factors, such as whether his laptop can even
handle more than 4GB of RAM, which most (with notable exceptions) pre-i5
laptops cannot do. If he were wanting to use F11 on an 8GB XPS
workstation with CAD class graphics running Lightwave then I would say
64-bit hands down. If he were wanting to install on a tower that had
more upgrade potential then there would be a case for it. As it stands
there's not a whole lot of benefit to running 64-bit on a laptop, and
there really won't be until 64-bit code becomes the standard and 32-bit
code starts to lag behind in updates, or not to be produced at all for
many packages, by which time I expect F14 or higher to be out.
Cheers,
--
Paul
11:43 a.m.
I wrote:
I’d also advise the Original Poster to consider whether he might
ever
upgrade this laptop.
Jatin K wrote:
Not in near future .... as I got it just before 4 days
But are you prepared to say “never”? Upgrades from 32 bit to 64 bit
aren’t supported, and are considerably harder than a normal upgrade.
If you go 32 bit now, you’ll have to do a reinstall to go 64 bit.
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | "Surely you don't begrudge me one measly bag per cup?"
aprilcottage.co.uk | "Of tea, no. Of sugar, yes."
| -- Peter Corlett
10:58 a.m.
On 11/04/2009 03:59 PM, Jatin K wrote:
On 11/04/2009 04:24 AM, James Wilkinson wrote:
> I’d also advise the Original Poster to consider whether he might ever
> upgrade this laptop.
Not in near future .... as I got it just before 4 days
There is no problem only a personal decision.
When I asked the same question a year ago the reply was:
"If you don't absolutely _need_ 64 bit software then use 32 bit."
64 bit caused me grief.
I went 32 bit and have had no problems what so ever.
No problems obtaining applications, no issues at all.
64 bit will become the norm when it's needed by highly advanced apps.
For most consumer apps, its likely not needed as has been addressed in
the memory discussion.
Were I in your position I would opt for 32 bit install the software and
just 'use' the computer.
In truth you probably will install 64 bit and all the discussion is
merely opinions.
Its not set in stone, if your'e not happy reinstall something else, its
only an hour.
Hope this helps
Roger
7:45 a.m.
On Wednesday 04 November 2009 04:49 AM, John Austin wrote:
On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 07:43 -0500, David wrote:
> On 11/4/2009 6:14 AM, Tim wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 03:58 +1100, Roger wrote:
>>> Were I in your position I would opt for 32 bit install the software
>>> and just 'use' the computer. In truth you probably will install 64
>>> bit and all the discussion is merely opinions.
>>
>
>
> When I built my first x86_64 box several years ago I immediately
> installed an x86_64 Fedora OS and software. With the needed x86 software
> and libraries mixed in as dealt with by the Fedora system. I never
> 'fought' the system. Whatever 'Fedora' wanted to do I did. I have
had
> none of the problems that some have mentioned. None. Ever.
>
> You bought the hardware why not use it?
>
>
+1
Very few problems with 64 bit over 5 years
I have had zero problems with 64 bit over the last yr or so, apart from
skype. But thats a completely different story :). So I would say, go for
64 bit if u don't use any proprietary software like skype which doesn't
behave well on a 64 bit system.
my 2 cents
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
7:41 a.m.
New subject: [SOLVED]should I go for 64bit version of Fedora 11 ?
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 05:46:27PM +0530, Jatin K wrote:
Ok , I have find this [a] by googling
[a]
---------------------------
For 64-bit Ubuntu, finding the proper 32-bit support packages is a
simple matter of opening up the Synaptic Package Manager, and
searching for the string “ia32”. With 64-bit openSuSE, 32-bit
support is already built-in, so you don’t have to do anything. With
Fedora, though, it’s a whole different story. Not only are the
32-bit packages not already installed, the Fedora folk don’t provide
any documentation on how to install them. The directions I found via
Google were outdated, and wouldn’t work. I finally resolved the
problem by asking a Red Hat employee in my local Linux Users Group.
[...snip...]
I'm not reprinting the rest of this because it's flat out wrong.
Ubuntu's 32-bit support on 64-bit platforms is pretty cracktastic if
you ask me.
In Fedora, you don't need to do anything specific for 32-bit library
support -- yum handles it all thanks to multilib support, and has for
quite a long time. Bad, outdated advice is actually worse than no
advice at all. If you found this page[1] then you'll notice my
comment in the comments section where I corrected the wrong advice.
If you're installing a 32-bit application via yum for some reason,
such as 'yum install newprogram.i586' (or newprogram.i686 in Fedora 12
or beyond), the 32-bit libraries will be brought down.
If you're installing an RPM you get from somewhere outside a yum
repository, you can do 'yum localinstall newpackage-1.0.i586.rpm' to
do the same thing.
If the application still has problems and complains about a missing
library, it's a bad packaging job by the vendor, not Fedora at fault.
You can often find the problem by reading the error output. If you
get a message that says something like "Can't open library
/usr/lib/libfoo.so.1", you can look it up with yum and install it
yourself, with 'yum install /usr/lib/libfoo.so.1'.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
6:25 a.m.
New subject: [SOLVED]should I go for 64bit version of Fedora 11 ?
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jatin K wrote:
On 11/03/2009 03:58 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 12:15 PM, Jatin K wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version
?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>>>>>> enabled )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
>>
> My thinking is it's not safe to decide on what you've heard. Flash
> works like a charm on all my 64-bit systems; and what is that "other
> software" are you referring to? 64-bit Linux has also 32-bit libs if
> needed.
>
Ok , I have find this [a] by googling
[a]
---------------------------
For 64-bit Ubuntu, finding the proper 32-bit support packages is a
simple matter of opening up the Synaptic Package Manager, and
searching for the string “ia32”. With 64-bit openSuSE, 32-bit support
is already built-in, so you don’t have to do anything. With Fedora,
though, it’s a whole different story. Not only are the 32-bit packages
not already installed, the Fedora folk don’t provide any documentation
on how to install them. The directions I found via Google were
outdated, and wouldn’t work. I finally resolved the problem by asking
a Red Hat employee in my local Linux Users Group.
*Add an “rpm” Macro*
This isn’t an absolute necessity, but it’s handy. Add the following
line to the “/etc/rpm/macros” file:
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Now, when you query for information about rpm packages, you’ll be able
to see whether they’re 32-bit or 64-bit packages.
sudo rpm -q SDL
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.x86_64
*Add the Libraries*
Next, add the 32-bit libraries by copying the following list, and
pasting it into a text file. Save it as “Fedora-ia32.txt”.
arts.i586
audiofile.i586
bzip2-libs.i586
cairo.i586
compat-expat1-1.95.8-4.i586
compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-63.i586
compiz.i586
cyrus-sasl-lib.i586
dbus-libs.i586
directfb.i586
esound-libs.i586
fltk.i586
freeglut.i586
gphoto2.i586
gtk2.i586
hal-libs.i586
imlib.i586
jack-audio-connection-kit.1.i586
java.i586
lcms-libs.i586
lesstif.i586
libacl.i586
libaio-0.3.106-4.2.i586
libao.i586
libattr.i586
libcap.i586
libdrm.i586
libexif.i586
libgcrypt-1.4.0-3.i586
libgnomecanvas.i586
libICE.i586
libieee1284.i586
libsigc++20.i586
libSM.i586
libtool-ltdl.i586
libusb.i586
libwmf.i586
libwmf-lite.i586
libX11.i586
libXau.i586
libXaw.i586
libXcomposite.i586
libXdamage.i586
libXdmcp.i586
libXext.i586
libXfixes.i586
libxkbfile.i586
libxml2.i586
libXmu.i586
libXp.i586
libXpm.i586
libXScrnSaver.i586
libxslt.i586
libXt.i586
libXTrap.i586
libXtst.i586
libXv.i586
libXxf86vm.i586
lzo.i586
mesa-libGL.i586
mesa-libGLU.i586
nas-libs.i586
nss_ldap.i586
opencdk.i586
openldap.i586
pam.i586
popt.i586
pulseaudio-libs.i586
sane-backends-libs-gphoto2.i586
sane-backends-libs.i586
SDL.i586
svgalib.i586
unixODBC.i586
zlib.i586
Finally, “su” to a root shell, and run the following command:
# for i in $(< Fedora-ia32.txt ); do yum -y install $i; done
When the process completes, you can verify that you have both 32-bit
and 64-bit packages installed.
sudo rpm -q SDL
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.x86_64
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.i586
*A Caveat*
By having to use the entire package name, all the way up through the
arch designation, we open ourselves up to a slight problem. That is,
package version numbers are also part of the package names. So, by the
time you read this, the script may have been partially broken due to
Fedora packages having been updated to newer versions. Here’s the way
around that.
Go ahead and do the procedure as written. Then, as root, run the
following command:
for i in $(< Fedora-ia32.txt ); do rpm -q >> rpm_results.txt $i; done
If package versions have changed, you’ll see a “not installed” error
message for it in the output file. Then, you can open Yum Extender,
and search for the update version to install.
*Conclusion*
The reason that the directions that I found via Google didn’t work, is
that the package list referenced the “i386” packages that were part of
Fedora 10. With Fedora 11, the “i386” packages have been replaced by
“i586” packages
Well, what do you know? How about yum search SDL | grep i586 or sudo yum
install yumex ? :)
6:45 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 02:32 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/03/2009 08:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1] ,
> My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ?
Depends on what you plan to use this notebook for.
> is there any
> significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
In theory, there are benefits to use the 64bit version.
In practice, these benefits (esp. on a "desktop notebook") are hardly
measurable and can easily be outweighed by other factors attached to
64bit.
So, my answer to your question: Provided how you ask, you likely don't
have real uses for 64bit.
Ralf
I personally prefer to use the most out of my hardware, but Ralf's
answer is a good one : it all depends on what you use it for.
6:33 a.m.
New subject: [SOLVED]should I go for 64bit version of Fedora 11 ?
On 11/03/2009 05:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jatin K wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 03:58 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 12:15 PM, Jatin K wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit
>>>>>>> version ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel
VT
>>>>>>> enabled )
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator
X4500M
>>>
>> My thinking is it's not safe to decide on what you've heard. Flash
>> works like a charm on all my 64-bit systems; and what is that "other
>> software" are you referring to? 64-bit Linux has also 32-bit libs if
>> needed.
>>
>
>
Well, what do you know? How about yum search SDL | grep i586 or sudo
yum install yumex ? :)
;-)
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
6:32 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 08:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
Dear all
I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1] ,
My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ?
Depends on what you plan to
use this notebook for.
is there any
significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
In theory, there are benefits to use
the 64bit version.
In practice, these benefits (esp. on a "desktop notebook") are hardly
measurable and can easily be outweighed by other factors attached to 64bit.
So, my answer to your question: Provided how you ask, you likely don't
have real uses for 64bit.
Ralf
6:16 a.m.
New subject: [SOLVED]should I go for 64bit version of Fedora 11 ?
On 11/03/2009 03:58 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 12:15 PM, Jatin K wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>>>
>>>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>>>>> enabled )
>>>>>
>>>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>>>
>>>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
>
My thinking is it's not safe to decide on what you've heard. Flash
works like a charm on all my 64-bit systems; and what is that "other
software" are you referring to? 64-bit Linux has also 32-bit libs if
needed.
Ok , I have find this [a] by googling
[a]
---------------------------
For 64-bit Ubuntu, finding the proper 32-bit support packages is a
simple matter of opening up the Synaptic Package Manager, and searching
for the string “ia32”. With 64-bit openSuSE, 32-bit support is already
built-in, so you don’t have to do anything. With Fedora, though, it’s a
whole different story. Not only are the 32-bit packages not already
installed, the Fedora folk don’t provide any documentation on how to
install them. The directions I found via Google were outdated, and
wouldn’t work. I finally resolved the problem by asking a Red Hat
employee in my local Linux Users Group.
*Add an “rpm” Macro*
This isn’t an absolute necessity, but it’s handy. Add the following line
to the “/etc/rpm/macros” file:
%_query_all_fmt %%{name}-%%{version}-%%{release}.%%{arch}
Now, when you query for information about rpm packages, you’ll be able
to see whether they’re 32-bit or 64-bit packages.
sudo rpm -q SDL
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.x86_64
*Add the Libraries*
Next, add the 32-bit libraries by copying the following list, and
pasting it into a text file. Save it as “Fedora-ia32.txt”.
arts.i586
audiofile.i586
bzip2-libs.i586
cairo.i586
compat-expat1-1.95.8-4.i586
compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-63.i586
compiz.i586
cyrus-sasl-lib.i586
dbus-libs.i586
directfb.i586
esound-libs.i586
fltk.i586
freeglut.i586
gphoto2.i586
gtk2.i586
hal-libs.i586
imlib.i586
jack-audio-connection-kit.1.i586
java.i586
lcms-libs.i586
lesstif.i586
libacl.i586
libaio-0.3.106-4.2.i586
libao.i586
libattr.i586
libcap.i586
libdrm.i586
libexif.i586
libgcrypt-1.4.0-3.i586
libgnomecanvas.i586
libICE.i586
libieee1284.i586
libsigc++20.i586
libSM.i586
libtool-ltdl.i586
libusb.i586
libwmf.i586
libwmf-lite.i586
libX11.i586
libXau.i586
libXaw.i586
libXcomposite.i586
libXdamage.i586
libXdmcp.i586
libXext.i586
libXfixes.i586
libxkbfile.i586
libxml2.i586
libXmu.i586
libXp.i586
libXpm.i586
libXScrnSaver.i586
libxslt.i586
libXt.i586
libXTrap.i586
libXtst.i586
libXv.i586
libXxf86vm.i586
lzo.i586
mesa-libGL.i586
mesa-libGLU.i586
nas-libs.i586
nss_ldap.i586
opencdk.i586
openldap.i586
pam.i586
popt.i586
pulseaudio-libs.i586
sane-backends-libs-gphoto2.i586
sane-backends-libs.i586
SDL.i586
svgalib.i586
unixODBC.i586
zlib.i586
Finally, “su” to a root shell, and run the following command:
# for i in $(< Fedora-ia32.txt ); do yum -y install $i; done
When the process completes, you can verify that you have both 32-bit and
64-bit packages installed.
sudo rpm -q SDL
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.x86_64
SDL-1.2.13-9.fc11.i586
*A Caveat*
By having to use the entire package name, all the way up through the
arch designation, we open ourselves up to a slight problem. That is,
package version numbers are also part of the package names. So, by the
time you read this, the script may have been partially broken due to
Fedora packages having been updated to newer versions. Here’s the way
around that.
Go ahead and do the procedure as written. Then, as root, run the
following command:
for i in $(< Fedora-ia32.txt ); do rpm -q >> rpm_results.txt $i; done
If package versions have changed, you’ll see a “not installed” error
message for it in the output file. Then, you can open Yum Extender, and
search for the update version to install.
*Conclusion*
The reason that the directions that I found via Google didn’t work, is
that the package list referenced the “i386” packages that were part of
Fedora 10. With Fedora 11, the “i386” packages have been replaced by
“i586” packages
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
5:04 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 03:58 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 12:15 PM, Jatin K wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>
>>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>>>
>>>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>>>>> enabled )
>>>>>
>>>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>>>
>>>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
>>>> Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it,
>>>> because only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full
>>>> capacities. Google is your friend.
>>>>
>>> ok thank you for your kind reply
>>>
>>> one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
>>> significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
>>> version of OS ??
>>>
>> Some people reported overall speed increases because of the reasons
>> mentioned earlier; however, do you have a reason not to go 64-bit?
>>
> one I heard that adobe flash has some problems with 64bit kernel
> ..... and other 32bit software creates some problem
>
> ( I'm not instrumenting with you ... I just need suggestion from the
> list .... so please don't misunderstand me )
>
> Regards
>
My thinking is it's not safe to decide on what you've heard. Flash
works like a charm on all my 64-bit systems; and what is that "other
software" are you referring to? 64-bit Linux has also 32-bit libs if
needed.
ok then I will go for 64bit ...... thank you very much for kind
information ...
Regards
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
4:28 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 12:15 PM, Jatin K wrote:
On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>>
>>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>>>> enabled )
>>>>
>>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>>
>>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
>>> Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because
>>> only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities.
>>> Google is your friend.
>>>
>> ok thank you for your kind reply
>>
>> one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
>> significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
>> version of OS ??
>>
> Some people reported overall speed increases because of the reasons
> mentioned earlier; however, do you have a reason not to go 64-bit?
>
one I heard that adobe flash has some problems with 64bit kernel .....
and other 32bit software creates some problem
( I'm not instrumenting with you ... I just need suggestion from the
list .... so please don't misunderstand me )
Regards
My thinking is it's not safe to decide on what you've heard. Flash works
like a charm on all my 64-bit systems; and what is that "other software"
are you referring to? 64-bit Linux has also 32-bit libs if needed.
4:15 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>>
>>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>>> enabled )
>>>
>>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>>
>>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
>> Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because
>> only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities.
>> Google is your friend.
>>
> ok thank you for your kind reply
>
> one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
> significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
> version of OS ??
>
Some people reported overall speed increases because of the reasons
mentioned earlier; however, do you have a reason not to go 64-bit?
one I heard that adobe flash has some problems with 64bit kernel .....
and other 32bit software creates some problem
( I'm not instrumenting with you ... I just need suggestion from the
list .... so please don't misunderstand me )
Regards
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
3:25 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1]
>> , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ? is there any
>> significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>>
>> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
>> enabled )
>>
>> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>>
>> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
> Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because
> only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities.
> Google is your friend.
>
ok thank you for your kind reply
one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
version of OS ??
Some people reported overall speed increases because of the reasons
mentioned earlier; however, do you have a reason not to go 64-bit?
3:15 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1]
> , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ? is there any
> significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>
>
> [1]
> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>
> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
> enabled )
>
> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>
> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because
only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities.
Google is your friend.
ok thank you for your kind reply
one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
version of OS ??
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
2:04 a.m.
On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
Dear all
I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1] ,
My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ? is there any
significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
[1]
Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
enabled )
RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
Yes, you should go
for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because only
a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities. Google is
your friend.
11:04 p.m.
On 11/04/2009 09:16 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Cameron Simpson<cs(a)zip.com.au> said:
> On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox<alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> | Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
> | of RAM.
>
> Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
>
> I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
> why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system.
>
If you have 1G (or really a little less) of physical RAM on 32-bit x86,
the kernel can map all of it into the kernel's virtual address space.
Otherwise, it has to use different addressing to access physical
addresses, IIRC mapping them on demand (which adds overhead).
On a 64-bit system, all of physical memory can be mapped into the kernel
address space at all times.
Also, x86_64 has a larger CPU register set, which can speed up some
operations.
So according to you .... one must go for 64bit if the hardware is
capable for it .... is it ????
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
No MS
9:46 p.m.
Once upon a time, Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> said:
On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| of RAM.
Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system.
If you have 1G (or really a little less) of physical RAM on 32-bit x86,
the kernel can map all of it into the kernel's virtual address space.
Otherwise, it has to use different addressing to access physical
addresses, IIRC mapping them on demand (which adds overhead).
On a 64-bit system, all of physical memory can be mapped into the kernel
address space at all times.
Also, x86_64 has a larger CPU register set, which can speed up some
operations.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
9:22 p.m.
On 04Nov2009 14:01, I wrote:
| On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| | Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| | of RAM.
|
| Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
| I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
| why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system. [...]
BTW, I found this:
http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpost.cfm?threadid=93648&catid=317
which is interesting but doesn't give me much clue about why the kernel
might like it.
--
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
It was a joke, OK? If we thought it would actually be used, we wouldn't have
written it! - Marc Andreessen on the creation of a <blink> tag
9:01 p.m.
On 03Nov2009 23:45, Alan Cox <alan(a)lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
| > Any software that can make use of more than 3 GB of virtual memory space
| > will benefit from a 64 bit install. This could be something like the
|
| Such as the kernel ... which is much happier in 64bit mode with over 1GB
| of RAM.
Is there some URL I could visit that qualifies this?
I'm not doubting you, but I would like to have a mental model of roughly
why and how 64-bit mode benefits a system.
Leaving aside any x86 architecturable hobbling that may be cleaner in the
emt64 world, I would have naively assumed that (absent a need to access >4GB
of RAM or mmap >4GB of a file) 32-bit would use physically smaller
instructions and generally require physically less bandwidth.
Presumably these presumptions are wrong or misleading; I'd like to know
how.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <cs(a)zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
The first rule of Italian driving: What is behind me is _not_ important!
- The Gumball Rally, on the removal of the rearview mirror
6:31 p.m.
New subject: [SOLVED]should I go for 64bit version of Fedora 11 ?
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 08:41:44 -0500,
"Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you're installing an RPM you get from somewhere outside a yum
repository, you can do 'yum localinstall newpackage-1.0.i586.rpm' to
do the same thing.
You can even use 'install' instead of the more wordy 'localinstall' in
recent versions of yum.
4:54 p.m.
Paul wrote:
Having only 3GB of RAM, you do not *need* 64-bit,
True.
and you will not
benefit from the larger addressable space.
That depends.
Any software that can make use of more than 3 GB of virtual memory space
will benefit from a 64 bit install. This could be something like the
GIMP with lots of open images, or a GIMP session where you’ve had lots
of images you’ve been working on and the virtual memory has been
fragmented.
I’d also advise the Original Poster to consider whether he might ever
upgrade this laptop.
James.
--
E-mail: james@ | Humans are humans. No one grouping is all good or all
aprilcottage.co.uk | bad, no one group has a monopoly on honour, decency or
| truth. Anyone that claims to have one is a
| dishonourable, indecent liar. -- Phil Launchbury
1:29 p.m.
Aioanei Rares wrote:
On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
> Dear all
>
> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major configuration[1]
> , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit version ? is there any
> significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>
>
> [1]
> Model :- Dell Vostro 1520 P-series
>
> Processor:- Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53 P8700 1066Mhz FSB ( Intel VT
> enabled )
>
> RAM :- 3GB DDR2 800Mhz
>
> Graphics :- Mobile Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M
Yes, you should go for 64-bit if your hardware supports it, because
only a 64-bit kernel will use that hardware at its full capacities.
Google is your friend.
It will not make all that much of a difference on a laptop with 3GB of
RAM. The real questioin these days is "why should I not run 64-bit?"
according to this ( http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=368607 )
article which is a very good treatise on 32/64-bit. Some software is
simply not supported on 64-bit, and takes a lot of work to get functioning.
Having only 3GB of RAM, you do not *need* 64-bit, and you will not
benefit from the larger addressable space. I would go 32-bit with that
particular computer, but that is only a personal preference. I use
32-bit operating systems (Linux and Windows 7) on my laptop and 64-bit
on my tower, simply because the laptop only has 4GB (3372MB usable but
not a big deal to me) and the tower has 8GB (and runs 3D rendering
software frequently).
Cheers,
--
Paul
9:12 a.m.
Jatin K wrote:
On 11/03/2009 02:55 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
> On 11/03/2009 11:15 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>> On 11/03/2009 01:34 PM, Aioanei Rares wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2009 09:38 AM, Jatin K wrote:
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> I've purchased a new Dell laptop Vostro 1520, major
>>>> configuration[1] , My question is should I go for FC 11 64bit
>>>> version ? is there any significant benefit if I use 64bit version ?
>>>>
>> one more question is there in my mind .... that will I see any
>> significant improvements in speed related issue if I go with 64bit
>> version of OS ??
>>
> Some people reported overall speed increases because of the reasons
> mentioned earlier; however, do you have a reason not to go 64-bit?
>
one I heard that adobe flash has some problems with 64bit kernel .....
and other 32bit software creates some problem
( I'm not instrumenting with you ... I just need suggestion from the
list .... so please don't misunderstand me )
Regards
I have use Fedora 64 bit since I could. I have only come into one
problem. Some CODECS don't work in 64 bit with mplayer/vlc. I have to
transcode those files in 32 bit to save the files.
Indeo (sp) CODECS for those interested.
--
Robin Laing
5284
days inactive
5286
days old
35 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
Alan Cox -
Bruno Wolff III -
Cameron Simpson -
Chris Adams -
David -
Dr J Austin -
James Wilkinson -
Jatin K -
Paul -
Paul W. Frields -
Ralf Corsepius -
Rares Aioanei -
Roberto Ragusa -
Robin Laing -
Roger -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim