Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 11.04: i686 vs. i686 PAE vs. x86_64

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The article only showed that 64 USERSPACE is faster!!! You gain absolutely nothing with 32 bit userspace!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Kano View Post
      The article only showed that 64 USERSPACE is faster!!! You gain absolutely nothing with 32 bit userspace!
      My original post was how I'd like to see some benchmarks that would actually test what the effect of the PAE vs 64 bit kernel was. All the article shows is as you say, that 64 bit kernel + 64 bit userland is faster. This isn't news. I was curious about whether the 64 bit kernel was any faster than a 32 bit kernel w/ PAE while keeping everything else the same (i.e., no userland changes).

      Comment


      • #33
        Also the article is not completely optimal for compareing as ubuntu uses different CONFIG_HZ settings for generic/server and 32 vs 64 bit kernels. Basically you need a kernel with 100% the same settings.

        Comment


        • #34
          Ubuntu is not a performance oriented distro. It is a distro that is supposed to be user friendly for people that don't know how to maintain/use a linux system or don't want to be bothered by doing so. Right now the friendliest and most trouble free version of linux on x86 is 32 bit. Canonical isn't likely to change their recommendation to use the 32 bit version any time soon no matter what the performance numbers look like.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by eikenberry View Post
            My original post was how I'd like to see some benchmarks that would actually test what the effect of the PAE vs 64 bit kernel was. All the article shows is as you say, that 64 bit kernel + 64 bit userland is faster. This isn't news. I was curious about whether the 64 bit kernel was any faster than a 32 bit kernel w/ PAE while keeping everything else the same (i.e., no userland changes).
            A 64 bit system with 32bit userland apps isn't likely to be faster as there is additional overhead translating calls from 32 to 64 bit.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Uqbar View Post
              First of all, some of the main and most popular third party software don't have 64bit support. Skype, Adobe Reader,
              So you are the one person using Adobe Reader on Linux!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                So you are the one person using Adobe Reader on Linux!
                Nope he isn't the only one. At least with Adobe reader I can fill in Adobe forms, it gets print orientation right and produces a better print job (the dithering is horrible on print outs on the free solutions).

                Comment


                • #38
                  As anybody can see, on average there is actually slight improvment in terms of performance on PAE-enabled systems. But I would attribute this to the fact that system have then a bigger filesystem cache. To really show how it affects perfrormance, one would need to perform tests on 2GB system. Anyway, nice it works good, especially, as I use PAE because of Xen.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Nexuiz 64-bit

                    Yes, Nexuiz does include 64-bit binaries.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I know ubuntu targets newbies but people who are likely going to try ubuntu arenít going to be xenophobes. Their going to have some understanding as to what 32 and 64 bit are and assume that if ubuntu is recommending 32 bit its going to suffer 64 bit issue on the scale windows did.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        are you serious?

                        I mean, do you really consider ditching flashplayer for gnash or lightspark to be a viable solution for a company like canonical (dare I say a viable solution at all)?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by allquixotic View Post
                          I agree with the point of the article that 64-bit should be the default / "recommended" version. Canonical should ship the beta of Adobe Flash 10.3 "Square" 64-bit whenever a user requests a flash install (or if they check the third-party software box at install-time), thus pressuring Adobe to finalize 64-bit support and make Flash update releases of 64-bit in lock-step with 32-bit.
                          They need permission from Adobe to redistribute that plugin, and last I heard about that Adobe doesn't want to give this permission...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                            Nope he isn't the only one. At least with Adobe reader I can fill in Adobe forms, it gets print orientation right and produces a better print job (the dithering is horrible on print outs on the free solutions).
                            Not to talk about the superior rendering, the tab interface, 3D support (admitedly not used much) and the possibility to tweak everything to your taste. When it comes to PDFs, I'm yet to see anything that approaches the bar set by acroread. Having said this, I recently discovered an impressingly fast and keyboard-driven pdf viewer that I use for quick & dirt document checking: MuPDF. For that use case, I recommend it over Xpdf, Okular and company. For those who care about it, I suggest PDF-XChange for document annotation and form-filling. It's got a gratis version and (for once) it works perfect under Wine. Forget abot PS trickery, loading documents in Inkscape or nonsense like that.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              While I agree about the poor coloring scheme, at least the positions remained the same throughout all the benchmarks and they where in the same order as the labels so the color did not matter that much.

                              I wonder though what made Apache2 bork on the 64-bit version, it's basically the only test where 64 is slower than 32.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X