Welcome to the Linux Foundation Forum!

Memory Management

CalçadoCalçado Posts: 1
in System Management

Could anybody help me?

Is there diference on PAGE SYSTEM used for memory management in Linux 32 and Linux 64 bits systems?

thanks!

Comments

  • woboylewoboyle Posts: 501
    huh? Please be more specific. The basic operations for demand-paged virtual memory is identical in all Linux systems. The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit systems is the amount of virtual (and physical) memory that can be accessed.
  • MikeEnIkeMikeEnIke Posts: 88
    Right - with 32bit systems there are only 3GB of visible memory - with 64bit systems you do not have that limitation. It doesn't effect virtual memory.
  • marcmarc Posts: 647
    MikeEnIke wrote:
    Right - with 32bit systems there are only 3GB of visible memory - with 64bit systems you do not have that limitation. It doesn't effect virtual memory.

    That is not exactly true: you can have more more that 3Gb visible with a 32bits kernel.
  • LCowlesLCowles Posts: 3
    Memory management is a large subject and I think you will need to be more specific.

    Some information

    32-bits is swiftly vanishing from both the desktop-hardware and Linux software community with evangelists such as "64 studio" leading the way and software houses (adobe, microsoft, apple etc...) following suit.

    basically if your pc is 64-bit capable use 64-bits, it's kind of like deciding to have a single or dual carriageway on a road.

    *(apologies to guru's who know it's not exactly twice the performance, but it is faster and has a larger infrastructure than 32-bits which is all that matters)
  • Goineasy9Goineasy9 Posts: 1,116
    I still run 32 bit versions, even on my 64 bit hardware. Why? Because I don't need 32bit libraries mixing in with 64 bit apps, and, unless your doing something like compiling code, or, transcoding video files, you won't see that much of a difference in speed. If you want to get around the 3gb restriction on memory, use a PAE kernel, I install them by default now, even though I only have one 8gb machine. The 4 gb machines show full usage, but, I've never seen a whole 4 gb used during any of my sessions.
    It's funny that you mentioned adobe, since they've just restricted access to their 64 bit version of flash. Adobe reader is still just a 32 bit app that runs on 64 bit. Even Google Earth & Skype require 32 bit libs to run.
    So, when the software developers some out with apps that run on 64 bit natively, I'll switch, but, until then, it's much easier for me to run a 32 bit OS and not worry about 64 bit compatibility.
  • marcmarc Posts: 647
    Goineasy9 wrote:
    I still run 32 bit versions, even on my 64 bit hardware. Why? Because I don't need 32bit libraries mixing in with 64 bit apps, and, unless your doing something like compiling code, or, transcoding video files, you won't see that much of a difference in speed. If you want to get around the 3gb restriction on memory, use a PAE kernel, I install them by default now, even though I only have one 8gb machine. The 4 gb machines show full usage, but, I've never seen a whole 4 gb used during any of my sessions.
    It's funny that you mentioned adobe, since they've just restricted access to their 64 bit version of flash. Adobe reader is still just a 32 bit app that runs on 64 bit. Even Google Earth & Skype require 32 bit libs to run.
    So, when the software developers some out with apps that run on 64 bit natively, I'll switch, but, until then, it's much easier for me to run a 32 bit OS and not worry about 64 bit compatibility.

    I totally agree.
  • gomergomer Posts: 158
    I'm actually torn here. On my company laptop, which has a 64-bit processor, I still run a 32-bit install. But on ALL of my personal machines, I run 64-bit installs. I understand wanting to wait until the developers produce 64-bit versions of their apps, but if we don't create the demand for them, then they'll continue to drag their feet.
Sign In or Register to comment.