Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 17.10 Will Drop The 32-bit Desktop ISO

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by chithanh View Post
    Maybe dropping i386 will free up resources to work on x32.
    Oh God, no. Let's just make a move to 64-bit entirely, and just drop the 32-bit stuff. What you're suggesting is a sideways move at best, not an upgrade.

    Sort of like upgrading from IPv4 to v6, and people keep tacking stuff onto v4, or watering down v6. Can we just make a move already? This extreme backwards compatibility is making software development much more complicated than it has to be.

    Comment


    • #32
      On rolling release model: I actually looked and surprisingly enough there are very few distributions left that have a regular release model. Most moved to either an LTS model or rolling release. Ubuntu and Fedora are the only major ones left.

      Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
      In before someone starts moaning that they're running one of those 32-bit Atom EEE-style netbooks from 10 years ago....
      Nah, I replaced my tablet this year. And it was always running Gentoo anyway. ...which is what the new tablet is running too, due to the need to compile a custom kernel (which should go away on the next kernel release).

      Comment


      • #33
        The big use for 32-bit images was for running Linux on VMs as a guest. Until pretty recently, many CPUs did not have the hardware assisted virtualization features, ive seen computers made just a few years ago that do not have it. What this means is that a CPU without AMD-V etc cannot run a 64 bit guest OS, even if the host OS is 64 bit. This is because in 64 bit mode, the CPU disables many of the x86 features that were used by virtualization software workarounds on x86-32. Features needed for virtualization were added with AMD-V, but any CPU without AMD-V cannot run a 64 bit guest.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by sa666666 View Post
          Sort of like upgrading from IPv4 to v6, and people keep tacking stuff onto v4, or watering down v6. Can we just make a move already? This extreme backwards compatibility is making software development much more complicated than it has to be.
          What is best way to do load-balancing between two IPv6-enabled uplinks on OpenWRT/LEDE? For IPv4 I use mwan3, but what I have to use for IPv6?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sa666666 View Post
            Oh God, no. Let's just make a move to 64-bit entirely, and jus
            What? x32 is equal to or faster than amd64 in many cases. If you do not need the 64-bit address space or security benefits, then x32 is the most efficient choice, sometimes by far. It is also why most of the userspace on early 64-bit architectures like mips64 or sparc64 used to be 32-bit.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by AndyChow View Post

              I've heard talk that the first 128-bit silicon might be produced by 2020... for riscv. You can already emulate it with riscvemu. From the little I understand, it's to have separation of memory management and memory protection, and have truly persistent pointers, potentially over networks or between exascale clusters. It won't be 128 bit flat indexing, but rather 64-bit indexing and 64-bit Object-ID. The 128-bit will be domain wide, not just local. So it can be defined (potential) on a global scale network of exascale clusters.

              And those exascale clusters are going to get built real soon. At least three are planned in Europe, one in the USA (officially, I'm sure DARPA wants a few), Japan, and China.

              To give an idea of the scale, Japan's goal is to have their exacomputer consume less than 30 megawatts. That's roughly the amount of energy needed to power 20 000 american residential homes.
              Great Scott!!! Never heard of it!!! Great tip Thanks!!!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                What? x32 is equal to or faster than amd64 in many cases. If you do not need the 64-bit address space or security benefits, then x32 is the most efficient choice, sometimes by far. It is also why most of the userspace on early 64-bit architectures like mips64 or sparc64 used to be 32-bit.
                I'm going to gently challenge you on this. Could you show me a single case where 32-bit userspace is faster than 64-bit userspace, not in practice, but theoretically? 64-bit might take more memory space, as in "used RAM", but I'm not aware of any situation where it's slower on a theoretical basis.

                I would agree that 32-bit can be more efficient in terms of used memory space, but I can't see how it could theoretically be faster.

                The reason why 32-bit userspace was/is still so prevalent, IMO, is because the code hasn't been re-writen correctly.

                There were cases where 32-bit code was faster, but that was, from what I've seen, because the 64-bit version used 32-bit data-types and then converted them into 64-bit data-types, which obviously is wasteful.

                In my "good old" VB days, I made several tests on data-types, and while every book and reference, even the official Microsoft ones, said that if your integer was never going to go beyond X value, use INT instead of LONG. But testing, LONG was always faster than INT. Eventually, a MS insider did admit to me that internally, all INT's were always converted to LONG's each and every time the variable was called!!!! And it was even worse with BYTE. So every VB coder that has ever tried to be more efficient by trying using INT or BYTE instead of LONG was completely fooled by the internal inefficiencies of a MS hack to make VB work smoothly. And still, to this day, some manuals will tell you "if you are sure it's always going to be between 0 and 255, use BYTE, it's really fast".

                Sure, real code doesn't behave this way, but rushed hacks to turn 32-bit userspace into 64-bit userspace might.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Good! 32bit needs to die.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by AndyChow View Post
                    I'm going to gently challenge you on this. Could you show me a single case where 32-bit userspace is faster than 64-bit userspace, not in practice, but theoretically? 64-bit might take more memory space, as in "used RAM", but I'm not aware of any situation where it's slower on a theoretical basis.
                    I don't quite understand your request. Of course 32-bit (ILP32) is both theoretically and practically faster than 64-bit (LP64) in pointer heavy code, and in memory bandwidth limited situations[1]. Also not only x86-64 has such an ABI, also ARM has made a 32-bit variant of their 64-bit architecture (aarch64-ilp32)[2] and it shows many of the same performance characteristics of x32 vs. x86-64.

                    [1] N. Rauschmayr et al., Evaluation of x32-ABI in the Context of LHC Applications, ICCS 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.394
                    [2] ILP32 for Aarch64 Whitepaper https://static.docs.arm.com/dai0490/...whitepaper.pdf

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by chithanh View Post
                      I don't quite understand your request. Of course 32-bit (ILP32) is both theoretically and practically faster than 64-bit (LP64) in pointer heavy code, and in memory bandwidth limited situations[1]. Also not only x86-64 has such an ABI, also ARM has made a 32-bit variant of their 64-bit architecture (aarch64-ilp32)[2] and it shows many of the same performance characteristics of x32 vs. x86-64.

                      [1] N. Rauschmayr et al., Evaluation of x32-ABI in the Context of LHC Applications, ICCS 2013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.394
                      [2] ILP32 for Aarch64 Whitepaper https://static.docs.arm.com/dai0490/...whitepaper.pdf
                      Yes, you are correct. Thank you, I learned something today.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X