64 bit slackware - Slackware

This is a discussion on 64 bit slackware - Slackware ; Hello I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're April 2008 now, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 64 bit slackware

  1. 64 bit slackware

    Hello

    I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot
    of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in
    the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're
    April 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit, and 64-bit
    OS'es are becoming more and more mainstream.
    Except Slackware... I know about Slamd64 and other forks. But no
    matter how much sympathy I have for these projects, I've never seen
    someone saying that he/she would use for example Slamd64 on a
    production server. Yes, it's fun to try it on a laptop and seeing it
    performing a few percents better than the 32-bit.
    For me, it's different. I'm using Slackware for many years now on
    servers because of its simplicity, stability, and also because its
    philosophy. I've tried Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, ... don't like them.
    But it's becoming difficult. As I'm currently using Xen on all my
    servers, I do experience some problems with Slackware. First, I have
    to compile Xen with the PAE-thing, to support all the memory in the
    server (typically there's more than 8GB in a server). That's not a big
    problem, though. The second problem I have, is some strange thing
    about Xen and TLS-binaries, which required my to recompile the
    complete libc6 library. Allthough it's working now for two years (I'm
    still running slackware 11 with xen 3.04), it's a lot of work I'll
    have to do when switching to slackware 12 and xen 3.2.
    These 2 problems simply don't exist on 64-bit distributions.
    I really would like to stick with Slackware. But what about the
    future? When will Slackware finally evolve to a 64-bit architecture?
    What's the official statement *today* about this? If there are plans
    to move to 64, I'd be glad to go through the pain of using the 32-bit
    version for some time now. If Slackware isn't planning this, I think
    it will be becoming more and more marginal. Eventually, everyone will
    have to move to another distribution like this.

    Regards

    Peter


  2. Re: 64 bit slackware

    peter.fastre@gmail.com wrote:
    > I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot
    > of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in
    > the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're
    > April 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit, and 64-bit
    > OS'es are becoming more and more mainstream.


    Actually I find the 64-bit a mixed blessing:
    for my job I now have to work (and port packages) in openSUSE 64-bits,
    but it leads to a lot of problems.
    One of them is Firefox/Seamonkey: openSUSE delivers them in a 64-bit
    version, but the Netscape plugin interface has only been defined for
    32-bits and a LOT of the plugins, especially Java and Flash ARE
    currently only available in 32-bits (there is a 64-bits JDK 6 SE,
    but it doesn't include the browser plugin and/or most of the JRE it
    relies on). For some plugins openSUSE includes 64-bits "wrappers",
    to be able to still use them, but not for Java (and the, very important
    here, Citrix/Cica plugin).
    So I had to install a 32-bit version of Firefox, but THAT one then
    doesn't work anymore with the 64-bits media players (like Totem,
    included in openSUSE, or the VLC player).
    This probably will not be resolved until Firefox 3 comes out, and
    maybe not even then, because FlashPlayer, Adobe Acrobat and all
    that stuff will have to be in 64-bits too.

    Also a lot of older packages don't work (or don't work well) with
    64-bits O/S, unless you install almost all of the 32-bits (including
    legacy) libraries too (like libstdc++-3, in two different versions,
    or even libstdc++.so.2.9), and no, they don't come standard with
    openSUSE although someone DID make packages for them.

    For another package the PC will have to go back to openSUSE 32-bit,
    as it needs too much 32-bit support, some of which conflicts WITH
    the 64-bit O/S itself.
    --
    ************************************************** ******************
    ** Eef Hartman, Delft University of Technology, dept. EWI/TW **
    ** e-mail: E.J.M.Hartman@math.tudelft.nl, fax: +31-15-278 7295 **
    ** snail-mail: P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands **
    ************************************************** ******************

  3. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On 23 apr, 11:39, Eef Hartman wrote:
    > peter.fas...@gmail.com wrote:
    > > I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot
    > > of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in
    > > the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're
    > > April 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit, and 64-bit
    > > OS'es are becoming more and more mainstream.

    >
    > Actually I find the 64-bit a mixed blessing:
    > for my job I now have to work (and port packages) in openSUSE 64-bits,
    > but it leads to a lot of problems.
    > ...


    That's true. If you have tried Windows XP 64 you experience similar
    problems. But aren't they all caused by people or companies which fail
    to provide decent, up-to-date versions of their software?
    I'm not using Linux on the desktop (that's another discussion), and on
    the server side I experience the opposite problem as you do. In my
    opinion, servers would benefit from 64-bit OS'es. Even Windows has
    made the step: almost all new Windows servers are delivered with
    Windows 2003 x64...

    Peter



  4. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:41:50 -0700, peter.fastre@gmail.com wrote:

    > I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot of
    > threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in the
    > future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're April
    > 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit,


    *Almost* all? It would be pretty hard to find a new 32-bit PC, unless
    you count the eeepc (not that I don't adore mine :-).

    > and 64-bit OS'es are
    > becoming more and more mainstream. Except Slackware... I know about
    > Slamd64 and other forks. But no matter how much sympathy I have for
    > these projects, I've never seen someone saying that he/she would use for
    > example Slamd64 on a production server.


    I don't think they tend to see themselves as forks, Slamd64 and BlueWhite
    seem to see themselves as providing a service to the Slackware community
    that isn't yet part of the mainstream service provided by PV.

    > Yes, it's fun to try it on a
    > laptop and seeing it performing a few percents better than the 32-bit.


    Or possibly the other way round, depending on what you are doing.

    > For me, it's different. I'm using Slackware for many years now on
    > servers because of its simplicity, stability, and also because its
    > philosophy. I've tried Ubuntu, Debian, Redhat, ... don't like them. But
    > it's becoming difficult.


    (Xen stuff snipped.)

    > I really would like to stick with Slackware. But what
    > about the future? When will Slackware finally evolve to a 64-bit
    > architecture?


    Going by the way that PV has handled other changes, I would expect the
    answer to be: sometime after everyone else has made all the mistakes and
    when it is easy to make the change.

    > What's the official statement *today* about this?


    Well, I can't speak for Slackware Inc.

    > If there
    > are plans to move to 64, I'd be glad to go through the pain of using the
    > 32-bit version for some time now. If Slackware isn't planning this, I
    > think it will be becoming more and more marginal. Eventually, everyone
    > will have to move to another distribution like this.


    It'll happen. When everyone else has done it. And there are millions of
    32-bit machines that will continue to need a reliable distro for at least
    a decade to come.

    Just be patient. Good things come to those who wait, and the meek shall
    inherit the earth. (**)

    Mark

    (**) Well, I'm glad to hear they're getting something at last, 'cos
    they've had such a terrible time of it until now. To misquote M. Python.
    --
    No sig found anywhere under /.

  5. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On 2008-04-23, peter.fastre@gmail.com wrote:
    > What's the official statement *today* about this?


    If you want an official statement, you're asking the wrong people. Try

    http://slackware.com/contact/

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  6. Re: 64 bit slackware

    First, a full 64bit distibution has it's shortcommings too. Ted Tso gives a
    nice overview of the details here:
    http://mailman.linux-thinkpad.org/pi...ry/042289.html

    One of the sollutions I like is the Debian one.
    The 32bit Debian release also has in the repositories a 64bit kernel and a
    64bit libc. Its gcc also supports building either 64bit or 32bit binaries.

    Thus you get the benefits of the 64bit kernel, where it's most important
    anyway, you can custom compile certain programs as 64bit but the majority
    of programs are 32bit - thus not allocating so much memory.


    ps.
    I did not read the part about XEN, but I'd suggest you look at KVM, much
    simpler much better in any way. And it's fast becoming THE virtuelization
    support for Linux.

    --
    damjan

  7. Re: 64 bit slackware

    >
    > I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot
    > of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in
    > the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're
    > April 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit, and 64-bit
    > OS'es are becoming more and more mainstream.


    Yeap, I am runnig big production server farm yet we still use mostly
    32-bit enterpise OSes. Reason? The only one is if you need more than 4GB
    addressed in the continues way(I am running servers with 64GB memory on
    2.4 kernel). So this fact touches pretty large DB
    installations and some fancy middleware. The latest buzzing virtualization
    implicates this for another reason since some solutions have sort of
    bubbling addressing but Xen in 4.x releases comes only as a 64-bit env.
    Apart for XEN do you really have to use 64-bit?

    Typical scenario is that after installing pure 64-bit server I have to add
    lots of compat libraries because tools, installators etc etc which come
    with the commercial software are still 32-bit, which often doubles
    libraries needed. So I still treat x86-64 Linux servers as immature
    solution which is on the crossroad.


    As for Slackware it has always been rather educational and for small
    servers, so I guess PV has not seen yet the reason for supporting 64-bit.


    --
    luk






  8. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On Apr 24, 9:39 pm, lukaswu wrote:
    > Yeap, I am runnig big production server farm yet we still use mostly
    > 32-bit enterpise OSes.
    > ....
    > As for Slackware it has always been rather educational and for small
    > servers, so I guess PV has not seen yet the reason for supporting 64-bit.


    Interesting quote. What do you mean by slackware being designed for
    rather educational/small servers? Do you think other linux servers are
    more up to the task of supporting bigger servers (I still mean x86
    servers with a lot of memory, like 32GB or 64GB, not mid or mainframe
    machines)? What do you run on your server farm?
    I'm using Xen with PAE now, that's what you mean with the bubbling
    addresses I think. Nice to know that Xen 4.x will be only 64-bit. To
    answer your question: apart from Xen and the 4GB memory issue I really
    don't need 64-bit. But as I am using Xen on all of my servers, I can't
    ignore the problem. The last few weeks I'm thinking about moving to
    another distribution, but it would involve a lot of work. Throwing
    away my custom slackware packages and creating debian/ubuntu packages
    is only one work item.

    Maybe I should go with the mixed solution: 64-bit debian/ubuntu on the
    domain0-host, and 32-bit slackware virtual hosts. I don't know if this
    will work smoothly, but I think it's worth a try.

    To all: thanks for your thoughts and replies

    Peter


  9. Re: 64 bit slackware

    peter.fastre@gmail.com wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > I know this question has been dealt with in the past, I've read a lot
    > of threads about Slackware supporting an official 64-bit release in
    > the future or not. Many discussions are becoming old though, we're
    > April 2008 now, and almost all new hardware is 64-bit, and 64-bit
    > OS'es are becoming more and more mainstream.
    > ...


    I use a stock 32bit 2.4.36 kernel, Slack 11.0 base and more than a few
    chunks of modern Opteron and Xeon based hardware for NAS client/server
    behavior characterization at work. The 32bit kernel+slack combo is
    significantly more stable and faster than 2.6.anything_tested_to_date in
    the medium speed, GigaBite/sec network performance arena. Basically I deal
    with enough day to day test and configuration issues without spending time
    unraveling additional dependencies.

    If you don't run memory intensive applications that require >4GB, you're
    not missing a thing.

    Cheers,

  10. Re: 64 bit slackware



    On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, peter.fastre@gmail.com wrote:

    >
    > Interesting quote. What do you mean by slackware being designed for
    > rather educational/small servers?


    Well, it is not said directly but if you follow earlier releases: amount
    of memory & CPUs supported, or package optimisation you can draw such a
    conclusion. Pat is rather conservative and not chasing the cutting edge
    novelties, which is lets him keep safe and stable distro.

    I claim it is educational cause it stick in the closest way to the old,
    good UNIX, whatever flavour you choose.


    >Do you think other linux servers are
    > more up to the task of supporting bigger servers (I still mean x86
    > servers with a lot of memory, like 32GB or 64GB, not mid or mainframe
    > machines)? What do you run on your server farm?


    Havent tested much others distros, personaly I use RedHat and recently we
    give a try to Xen Entp (Suse is... Suse, Mandrake, well is Mandrake . On
    machines that do not need commercial software I run Slackware though I
    always prepare my own kernel.

    > I'm using Xen with PAE now, that's what you mean with the bubbling
    > addresses I think.


    The result is similar but method different. Bubbles are fragmented memory
    which is presented by supervisor layer as continues memory to virtual
    guests
    through (I think) many tricks wich results in performance downgrade
    (tested). As
    far as I know this method is used by ESX yet I was never been interested
    in it so can not tell you details.

    >Nice to know that Xen 4.x will be only 64-bit. To
    > answer your question: apart from Xen and the 4GB memory issue I really
    > don't need 64-bit. But as I am using Xen on all of my servers, I can't
    > ignore the problem. The last few weeks I'm thinking about moving to
    > another distribution, but it would involve a lot of work. Throwing
    > away my custom slackware packages and creating debian/ubuntu packages
    > is only one work item.
    >
    > Maybe I should go with the mixed solution: 64-bit debian/ubuntu on the
    > domain0-host, and 32-bit slackware virtual hosts. I don't know if this
    > will work smoothly, but I think it's worth a try.
    >


    To improve performance you will need to recompile the kernel and enable
    wirtualization and let the guest run in paravirtualised mode. Never tested
    virtualised Slackware but I can not see any reason why it should not run
    fast and stable in this configuration.

    Take care

    --
    luk

  11. Re: 64 bit slackware

    Has anyone tried both slamd64 and bluewhite64, and if so what do they
    think is best? Slamd64 will not boot the system that is on the hard
    disc from cd (i.e. use the cd as a boot disk) or recognize my cd/dvd
    writers or audigy 2 with the standard kernel or my own. When I did bug
    reports they just said it was invalid because 'it works for me' or
    'custom kernel,' but did not ask about my system or say anything else I
    could have tried or reported to help. Can anyone run a cd/dvd writer on
    bluewhite64? I do not feel like installing a whole new linux right now
    just to try that; I was forced to use a windows system for a class and
    it has cd/dvd writers (just to back up data besides on external hard disc.)

  12. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On Mon, 19 May 2008 00:19:56 -0700, David Chmelik wrote:

    >Has anyone tried both slamd64 and bluewhite64, and if so what do they
    >think is best? Slamd64 will not boot the system that is on the hard
    >disc from cd (i.e. use the cd as a boot disk) or recognize my cd/dvd
    >writers or audigy 2 with the standard kernel or my own.


    A bit dated: http://slackworld.berlios.de/2007/sl...bit_world.html

    I'm downloading Fedora-9 x64 at the moment for a try and have opensuse
    x64 10.2 installed, sadly I still choose run the box with WinXP rather
    than linux desktop.

    I'll be looking at 64-bit slack variants again, soon as I receive a new
    mobo (G31+ICH7) to update another box for a Core2Duo to run linux on.

    Grant.
    --
    http://bugsplatter.mine.nu/

  13. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On 2008-05-19, David Chmelik wrote:
    > Has anyone tried both slamd64 and bluewhite64, and if so what do they
    > think is best? Slamd64 will not boot the system that is on the hard
    > disc from cd (i.e. use the cd as a boot disk) or recognize my cd/dvd
    > writers or audigy 2 with the standard kernel or my own. When I did bug
    > reports they just said it was invalid because 'it works for me' or
    > 'custom kernel,' but did not ask about my system or say anything else I
    > could have tried or reported to help. Can anyone run a cd/dvd writer on
    > bluewhite64? I do not feel like installing a whole new linux right now
    > just to try that; I was forced to use a windows system for a class and
    > it has cd/dvd writers (just to back up data besides on external hard disc.)


    I've been running Slamd64 for quite a long time. I've never had any
    issues except in the early days of its development/porting.

    I've not run into an issue where its never booted before.

    What processor/mobo/chipset etc are you running?

    -Matt

  14. Re: 64 bit slackware

    On Apr 23, 4:41 am, "peter.fas...@gmail.com"
    wrote:
    > I know about Slamd64 and other forks. But no
    > matter how much sympathy I have for these projects, I've never seen
    > someone saying that he/she would use for example Slamd64 on a
    > production server.


    It's simple. Quit worrying about what everyone else is doing and stop
    following a bandwagon. Try it, and use it if it works.
    It drives me nuts how many people just "wait and see". Quit worrying
    about what everyone else is doing.
    From my experience it seems like more and more users are just turning
    into zombies and following an imaginary scent of brains. The GPL is
    there for a reason but everyone starts to panic when something starts
    moving away from "that good old thyme GNU/Linux". Like it's an
    unwritten rule that you have to follow along and wait for the beep to
    turn the page.

    There are options out there for you. Problem is you don't want to take
    advantage of them.

    Just something to ponder.

+ Reply to Thread