7/9 Are 64-bit Linux servers popular compared to 32-bit ones? My company
has a server product that supports 32-bit, and we're trying to see if
it's worth supporting 64-bit as well. Thanks.
\_ in my company, everything linux is 64bit except the handful of
redhat satellite servers, because redhat's sat server product
doesn't support running on 64bit systems (yet). DOH!
\_ Compared to 32bit? No. Whether it is worth it to support or not
depends on a lot of things, but mostly the desires of your
customers and the cost of doing supporting it.
customers and the cost of supporting it.
\_ It has more bits so it must be better! Seriously though, now that
64 bit is here I think you'll find most places doing 64 bit. The
best people to ask are your current customers. Unless you're
making a pre-packaged toaster product, then it doesn't matter.
\_ No, you will not find most places doing 64bit. It's still early.
\_ Maybe at your place. See the person below for an exmaple.
\_ I went to USENIX recently and 64bit is still far from
the norm.
\_ No 64bit at all in most of the places of USENIX
attendees? You know this how?
\_ Did I say: "No 64bit at all?" No, I did not. However,
the topic came up in a session and only a few
people said they used it in production.
\_ Representing how many servers and which companies?
Was this the "64 bit linux" session?
\_ How many are represented by you and two other
MOTD trolls?
\_ Oh, ah, personal attack! Way to go! You
are right, 64 bit is DOA. How many? Like
the other poster we have been building only
64 bit boxes in the last few months and
have the remaining non-64 bit scheduled for
termination over the coming months. Maybe
your place of business is just too small or
doesn't do real work?
\_ I never said it was DOA. It will
gradually become the standard.
However, it is currently not the
standard. Even you admit that you
only started to switch over a few months
ago.
\_ You trolled. I sarcastically trolled
back with the DOA overstatement. I
admit nothing. I told you we've been
at it for a few months which started
last year and continues forward as we
have time for it and new machines come
online. I expect most places will be
doing similar gradual rollouts. The
idea that a few usenix attendees at
a single session is representative of
industry is no more likely than your
'motd trolls' as you call us are
representative of industry. Less so
since we're actually here to discuss
it with you, not a vague 'please
raise your hand' at a session. Again,
this isn't rocket science stuff. 64
bit linux is a big thing for some
people, nice for most and harmless to
most of the rest. Only a few with
custom apps or low loads won't get
anything from it. Unless you *know*
you don't want 64 bit, you want 64
bit. And just because it isn't being
rolled out in bulk doesn't mean it
isn't the thing to do. Quite the
opposite, that means it is the thing
that is being done right now as we
speak and doing a gradual rollout is
the smart way to go in most shops.
\_ I was disputing the "most
places are doing 64 bit" statement
above. Most places are not
doing 64 bit for production. You
allude to that above with your
gradual rollout statement. 32
bit is still far more pervasive
than 64 bit at this time.
\_ If they've got 64 bit in
production right now as part of
a long term roll out then they
are doing 64 bit in production.
Just because they didn't flip
1000+ machines in a day doesn't
mean they're not doing 64 bit.
They're being smart. Any place
with that many machines is going
to do almost any change like
this in a gradual rollout. Why
is 'production' so hard to
grasp? What is your tech focus?
Programming? Sysadmin? Manage-
ment? Something else?
\_ We are 3/4 the way to converting to 64-bit everywhere. We should
be done by end of year. -Ops guy at company with 1000+ servers
\_ Why are you converting?
\_ Because the 32 bit limits suck for real computing. !gp
\_ Then you should've been running Solaris all along. Why
was 32 bit okay 12 months ago and suddenly not good
enough now? I can think of some reasons why you'd have
to upgrade to a 64 bit OS on a 32 bit processor, but they
are not common ones - mostly a need to address massive
files or memory - hardly a reason to upgrade every
server at a company for the hell of it.
\_ Solaris = not free. 32 bit 12 months ago = sucked then
with lots of work arounds. 64 bit now = it just works.
Convert everything because it is easier to maintain
fewer images/builds. This isn't rocket science. Why
do you think a place with 1000+ servers doesn't have
'a need to address massive files or memory'? 2 gigs
is hardly 'massive'. I've got games that require more
ram than that..
\_ Solaris is free. You can have more than 2GB of
RAM or a 2GB file with a 32 bit OS. You don't
need a 64 bit OS for that.
\_ Solaris is not free when you have to buy real
hardware to run it and you knew that. If you're
talking the x86 version, get off the motd.
\_ I didn't know Linux came with free hardware.
\_ The OS is now free, x86 or not. The hardware
is not free, but neither is Intel hardware. If
you are worried about x86, what does Linux
64 bit buy you?
\_ The OS has been 'free' for years but
useless without the hardware. And Sun
hardware is way more expensive than x86.
If I want a production quality system
running Solaris it will cost more than
a linux 64 bit system. That is why Sun
is dead and linux continues to grow.
\_ You can run Solaris on x86 and the
hardware costs will be the same. If
\_ Solaris x86? Whatever. We are
talking about production 24/7 systems
that real people support, not your
Quake4 server.
\_ The code is the same. I repeat,
this is not x86 circa 1992.
\_ Quake4 server. 2007.
you want the Sun hardware then the
premium is not as bad as it used to
be. An Ultra45 costs maybe $6K
versus almost $5K for a high-end Dell.
\_ Great, I just spent an extra $1k for
what exactly? And how much does Sun
support cost on that box?
\_ For a true 64 bit CPU.
A Linux 64 bit system running on a
32 bit chip is not true 64. If you
\_ Who said these are 32 bit chips?
Where'd you get that idea from?
\_ Which 64 bit chip are you
running on then?
\_ So you're going to claim that
the current gen Intel/AMD x86
chips aren't 64 bit? This is
going to turn into a philosophy
debate on instructions sets now,
huh?
\_ Yes, I would claim that
the current gen chips
are not true 64 bit chips.
They are 32 bit chips
with 64 bit extensions.
\_ distinction being? as in,
why should I care?
want 64 bit Linux you need to run on
something like Itanium and that's
not cheap either. However, did you
\_ Who said Itanium? Did we flash back
to 1998? This is 2007. Both AMD and
Intel are selling true 64 bit chips.
Hello?
\_ Yes, and Intel's is called the
Itanium - IA64.
\_ See above.
realize that Solaris x86 is not the
same crappy product it was 15 years ago?
\_ Sun is hardly dead. You can get a 16
\_ Solaris x86 is the same crappy
product it always was. It is a niche
product which makes no sense in 99%
of the real world.
\_ Solaris has a lot of features
that Linux does not have.
\_ Solaris does but who is running
Solaris x86 in a real production
environment? I'd be surprised
to hear of any place with more
than a handful in 24x7 and have
a heart attack plus a stroke if
anyone is doing thousands of
solaris x86 anywhere.
\_ Why does Solaris x86
bother you so much? It's
the same OS as Solaris
SPARC. A lot of Canadian
companies are using it,
FWIW. I would consider
using it in order to use
some Solaris features
like ZFS (until Linux
gets it), the scheduler,
and containers.
\_ Sun is hardly dead. You can get a 8
core T1000 for $5k these days and its
operating costs will be less than 1/4th
what 4 dual core Intel boxes would be.
\_ What about 1 dual chip quad box? :)
The T1000 is not so useful for
floating point, but it was good
to mention it. I had almost
forgotten, since I mostly care
about floating point. Also, IBM's
new Power6 chip will run Linux,
too. To claim you need 64 bit
computing and then run it on a 32 bit
CPU is laughable. I will
eventually run 64 bit Linux on
i386, too, but to think that most
people (or even a sizeable fraction)
are doing so now is deluded. We
are just now starting to port over
most of our major s/w, although
we started a year ago, and it
will probably be another two or
three years before we can drop 32 bit
entirely because of all the testing.
A rule of thumb is that it takes
about 5 years to throw old
hardware/software out the door,
so I expect there will be a lot
of 32 bit Linux for some time
yet. Realize that there are companies
still running VMS and DOS.
\_ Our older 32-bit servers needed to be upgraded, so we decided
to roll out new 64-bit servers with 16GB of RAM. We have lots
of apps that need to address more than 2GB of RAM, or we can
make better use of the new faster boxes by addressing more
RAM in the java container. It is easier in the long run to
only have to support one platform, rather than two, also. |
http://csua.com/feed/