[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120806004336.1306937b@sibserver.ru>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:43:36 +0800
From: orc <orc@...server.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl 0.9.3 released
On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:31:12 +0800
orc <orc@...server.ru> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:22:20 -0400
> Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
>
> > If I were going to switch to x86_64 cpu, which I will probably do in
> > the next few years, x32 would certainly be appealing. Not decided
> > for sure, but it seems very nice to get all the important benefits
> > of a 64-bit cpu with none of the bloat.
>
> Somewhat bloated, but not so much. Often I see only that massive apps
> like web browsers eat much of RAM usually. 2G usually enough for me to
> run 3-4 qemu-kvm's and bloated Firefox 12 (eats about 700M usually,
> critical was 1G and 100M swap, 1 month of it's uptime). Now I use 4G
> (additional 2G is for tmpfs. I like to store large blobs in /tmp
> often). I use x86_64 for 3 years without any problems. If Firefox (or
> any application of same class, chromium probably) will continue to
> grow, then five or seven years will be enough to make x32 be obsoleted
> (compared with ff3, it's maximum memusage was 300M, and for 3.6 it was
> 400M).
>
>
>
>
> (someone can note that 2G is too overkill, but I don't care)
Also, does x32 run on plain x86_64? If it does, then probably that
large apps like Firefox can be compiled and run in that mode can have
benefits. If it is required that you must run only x32 kernel, then I
see no it's benefits currently. It will be much easier to run plain 32
bits Firefox.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
