32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux - Suse

This is a discussion on 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux - Suse ; Chris Cox wrote: >noi ance wrote: >... >> 32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same with >> dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the difference from a >> single v.dual cpu ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

  1. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    >noi ance wrote:
    >...
    >> 32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same with
    >> dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the difference from a
    >> single v.dual cpu or 32bit v. 64bit, major cpu upgrades excluded.


    >That's definitely NOT true. With more than processors your machine
    >can handle more things simultaneously. More apps open at one time
    >all doing things without a hiccup. Machine will feel faster and
    >smoother vs a single CPU. Note: many contemporary CPUs are multi-core,
    >that while not as good as dedicated processors, it still will
    >be felt.


    Especially in programs written to be run on a mulitprocessor.
    Most older programs aren't. The only gain then is that the
    running program *may* not be interrupted when system processes
    having nothing to do with the program are run.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

  2. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:25:00 -0400, 2CA001 typed this message:

    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >> noi ance wrote:
    >> ...
    >>> 32 vs 64 bit can't tell the performance difference but it's the same
    >>> with dual processors. Once it gets going you can't tell the
    >>> difference from a single v.dual cpu or 32bit v. 64bit, major cpu
    >>> upgrades excluded.

    >>
    >> That's definitely NOT true. With more than processors your machine can
    >> handle more things simultaneously. More apps open at one time all
    >> doing things without a hiccup. Machine will feel faster and smoother
    >> vs a single CPU. Note: many contemporary CPUs are multi-core, that
    >> while not as good as dedicated processors, it still will be felt.

    >
    > Agreed, I went from a single core AMD XP3700 clocked at 2400MHz to a
    > quad core Intel Q6600 also clocked at 2400MHz. The Q6600 runs rings
    > around the XP3700 when running the same clock speed and always feels
    > _way_ more responsive (even when it was running with 1Gb RAM in single
    > channel mode due to one stick of Crucial Ballistix failing.... which is
    > the same amount of RAM in the XP3700 has in dual channel mode!). That
    > was before I overclocked the Q6600 to 3GHz and put 4Gb Corsair XMS2 RAM
    > in it so it screams now......


    Of course there's some improvement of multi-core over single core or they
    wouldn't make them.

    I said once it gets going. About a week or 2 after installation the
    newness wears off and one gets use to the new, whether thats 32 vs. 64 or
    single vs dual core.

  3. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:24:09 +0000, Vahis typed this message:

    > On 2008-09-07, houghi wrote:
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> If I remember correctly, the last Amarok version for SuSE 10.3 had
    >>> those problems.

    >>
    >> The signature below is done by looking at what Amarok is playing. That
    >> song is mp3. I am on 64bit. I admit I am on 11.0 As I am not intending
    >> on installing 10.3 on tjis machine and you seem not to be 100% sure, is
    >> there anybody who can confirm there are issues with Amarok on a 10.3 64
    >> bit system? If possible only those people who had a problem or still do
    >> have problem while it was installed using either YaST or zypper.
    >>
    >> houghi

    >
    > Amarok is fine here.
    >
    > But Kaffeine won't play anything.
    > The version is 0.8.6-54.1
    > There's version 0.8.7-0.pm.1 available at Packman.
    >
    > Normally the pm:s are good at multimedia. Now, this can't be updated
    > normally because it requires libxine1-1.15-0.pm.1.x86_64
    >
    > And "There's no installabel providers"
    >
    > With YaST and Zypper.
    >
    > But I've left it alone, these things tend to sort out during time...
    >
    > Mplayer VLC and Smplayer work just fine.


    Did you install all the Xine libraries? Kaffeine should work out of the
    box.

  4. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:

    > houghi wrote:
    >>Paul J Gans wrote:
    >>> Chris Cox wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >>>>versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >>>>and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.
    >>>
    >>> What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    >>> 64 bit openSUSE?

    >
    >>There is a computer involved. That is about it. 32 bit software just
    >>works under a 64 bit system. And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >>will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.

    >
    > Be serious. There is more to it than that. The machine
    > operates in either 32 bit or 64 bit modes. The OS is
    > 64 bit. So I would imagine that there is a fair amount
    > of switching back and forth when system calls are made,
    > and they are made frequently in most programs.
    >
    > There are other ways to do it, of course. I was asking for
    > information on how it is really done.
    >
    > Magic isn't the answer.
    >


    There is no "switching back and forth" between 32bit/64bits
    It is just a change in the mode the CPU is currently in
    --
    We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms.


  5. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    2CA001 wrote:
    > Agreed, I went from a single core AMD XP3700 clocked at 2400MHz to a
    > quad core Intel Q6600 also clocked at 2400MHz. The Q6600 runs rings
    > around the XP3700 when running the same clock speed


    That's even on a single core (1 core of the Q6600 is faster than the
    XP3700 core). For a real comparison one would need to compare the 3700
    with a system with 2 (or more) 3700's.

  6. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On 2008-09-07, noi ance wrote:
    > On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:24:09 +0000, Vahis typed this message:
    >
    >> On 2008-09-07, houghi wrote:
    >>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>>> If I remember correctly, the last Amarok version for SuSE 10.3 had
    >>>> those problems.
    >>>
    >>> The signature below is done by looking at what Amarok is playing. That
    >>> song is mp3. I am on 64bit. I admit I am on 11.0 As I am not intending
    >>> on installing 10.3 on tjis machine and you seem not to be 100% sure, is
    >>> there anybody who can confirm there are issues with Amarok on a 10.3 64
    >>> bit system? If possible only those people who had a problem or still do
    >>> have problem while it was installed using either YaST or zypper.
    >>>
    >>> houghi

    >>
    >> Amarok is fine here.
    >>
    >> But Kaffeine won't play anything.
    >> The version is 0.8.6-54.1
    >> There's version 0.8.7-0.pm.1 available at Packman.
    >>
    >> Normally the pm:s are good at multimedia. Now, this can't be updated
    >> normally because it requires libxine1-1.15-0.pm.1.x86_64
    >>
    >> And "There's no installabel providers"
    >>
    >> With YaST and Zypper.
    >>
    >> But I've left it alone, these things tend to sort out during time...
    >>
    >> Mplayer VLC and Smplayer work just fine.

    >
    > Did you install all the Xine libraries? Kaffeine should work out of the
    > box.


    I had to get the latest ver of amarok in a roundabout way & the xine libs
    are in packman's "other" directory which I found in a circular fashion also
    via freshmeat, xine, packman.

    Even so, had I installed the libxine1-1.15 by setting to install disregarding
    the dependencies & forcing the install.

    Just shows packman doesn't have everything or one has to add 2 different
    packman directories in the repositaries; will have to go thru the
    circular to find packman's other directory again...

  7. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    nobody wrote:
    > I had to get the latest ver of amarok in a roundabout way & the xine libs
    > are in packman's "other" directory which I found in a circular fashion also
    > via freshmeat, xine, packman.


    Strange, I just did the install and it worked.

    > Even so, had I installed the libxine1-1.15 by setting to install disregarding
    > the dependencies & forcing the install.


    Again, strange. I did not force anything

    > Just shows packman doesn't have everything or one has to add 2 different
    > packman directories in the repositaries; will have to go thru the
    > circular to find packman's other directory again...


    And here again strange as with me everything works and I just added the
    standard Packman that is in the YaST repo. I just installed MPlayer,
    MPlayer plugin and codec32 and it works.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : De Dijk
    | Song : Onderuit
    | Album : Zullen We Dansen

  8. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > There are other ways to do it, of course. I was asking for
    > information on how it is really done.


    Sorry, I didn't know you wanted to know the technical stuff in detail.

    houghi
    --
    This was written under the influence of the following:
    | Artist : Grateful Dead
    | Song : Weather Report Suite
    | Album : Dick's Picks

  9. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    graham wrote:
    ....
    > With openSUSE 11.0 the 64bit firefox works fine with flash and java and
    > its plugin java-1_6_0-openjdk-plugin-1.2_b09-10
    > Both are as supplied with openSUSE and not installed via adobe or sun
    > sites.


    Sigh.. no. The java plugin DOES NOT handle all java applets. So unless
    your idea of a java applet is a "dancing duke"... you won't be pleased
    with the result.

    Also, as many others will tell you, you will find hangs, crashes and
    moments with flash just doesn't activate for an embedded flash object
    on a page when using a 64bit browser with flash.

    You could call that "working" I suppose... but I don't. More work
    left to do.



  10. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    noi ance wrote:
    .....
    > I said once it gets going. About a week or 2 after installation the
    > newness wears off and one gets use to the new, whether thats 32 vs. 64 or
    > single vs dual core.


    Yes... that's a bigger problem. I remember going back to one of my
    old machines (top of the line in its day)... boy did it feel slow.
    It's just not a (hw/sw) solvable problem.


  11. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    ....
    >
    > Especially in programs written to be run on a mulitprocessor.
    > Most older programs aren't. The only gain then is that the
    > running program *may* not be interrupted when system processes
    > having nothing to do with the program are run.


    While true, a quick ps will show that you have more than one PROCESS
    running. And that exploits multiple CPUs... arguably more so than
    just having a few threaded apps.

    I'd say the benefit for >99% of all users is in speed and smoothness
    WITHOUT any threaded applications.... it makes a HUGE difference.
    Processes are just really fat threads with better isolation and full
    contexts.


  12. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    On 2008-09-07, houghi wrote:
    > nobody wrote:
    >> I had to get the latest ver of amarok in a roundabout way & the xine libs
    >> are in packman's "other" directory which I found in a circular fashion also
    >> via freshmeat, xine, packman.

    >
    > Strange, I just did the install and it worked.


    Looks like it. it was in packman.link2linix.org & libxine1-1.15 was in
    the "other" category as it wasn't catalogued in multimedia. Quite
    strange as the date for libxine1-1.15 is 8-15-2008 & yet would "swear"
    the the xine website had a date in 2007.

    >
    >> Even so, had I installed the libxine1-1.15 by setting to install disregarding
    >> the dependencies & forcing the install.

    >
    > Again, strange. I did not force anything
    >
    >> Just shows packman doesn't have everything or one has to add 2 different
    >> packman directories in the repositaries; will have to go thru the
    >> circular to find packman's other directory again...

    >
    > And here again strange as with me everything works and I just added the
    > standard Packman that is in the YaST repo. I just installed MPlayer,
    > MPlayer plugin and codec32 and it works.
    >
    > houghi


    Guess that is the "problem" as I was trying to install amarok-1.14-10
    & not MPlayer.....

  13. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >Paul J Gans wrote:


    >> houghi wrote:
    >>>Paul J Gans wrote:
    >>>> Chris Cox wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>One solution is to take certain pieces back to using 32bit
    >>>>>versions.. but that's pretty complicated for the novice user
    >>>>>and when done incorrectly can leave you with a real mess.
    >>>>
    >>>> What is involved with making a 32 bit executable work under
    >>>> 64 bit openSUSE?

    >>
    >>>There is a computer involved. That is about it. 32 bit software just
    >>>works under a 64 bit system. And when you use YaST for installation, it
    >>>will see that it finds all the dependencies if needed.

    >>
    >> Be serious. There is more to it than that. The machine
    >> operates in either 32 bit or 64 bit modes. The OS is
    >> 64 bit. So I would imagine that there is a fair amount
    >> of switching back and forth when system calls are made,
    >> and they are made frequently in most programs.
    >>
    >> There are other ways to do it, of course. I was asking for
    >> information on how it is really done.
    >>
    >> Magic isn't the answer.
    >>


    >There is no "switching back and forth" between 32bit/64bits
    >It is just a change in the mode the CPU is currently in


    That is called "switching back and forth". There is
    a penalty with it. Each time it is done the stack
    has to be saved along with all registers. They then
    have to be reloaded with new stuff. That's like
    a context switch, but there is likely more involved.

    I don't know but I'd assume that memory page pointers
    have to be switched and that page size might even have
    to change.

    If you are right and this is the way it is done, it is
    quite expensive. Of course, whether one notices or not
    depends on the program running.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

  14. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    houghi wrote:
    >Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> There are other ways to do it, of course. I was asking for
    >> information on how it is really done.


    >Sorry, I didn't know you wanted to know the technical stuff in detail.


    Yeah. I should have made that clear.

    It is an interesting technical problem that I last dealt with
    when we switched from 16 bit machines to 32 bit machines.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

  15. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    >Paul J Gans wrote:
    >...
    >>
    >> Especially in programs written to be run on a mulitprocessor.
    >> Most older programs aren't. The only gain then is that the
    >> running program *may* not be interrupted when system processes
    >> having nothing to do with the program are run.


    >While true, a quick ps will show that you have more than one PROCESS
    >running. And that exploits multiple CPUs... arguably more so than
    >just having a few threaded apps.


    >I'd say the benefit for >99% of all users is in speed and smoothness
    >WITHOUT any threaded applications.... it makes a HUGE difference.
    >Processes are just really fat threads with better isolation and full
    >contexts.


    Sure. I get that.

    What does seem to be impossible with a multicore machine is
    to dedicate one core to a particular job and then let the other(s)
    handle everything else.

    AFAIK, one needs a machine with parallel processors (not cores)
    to do that. Operating system limitation.

    --
    --- Paul J. Gans

  16. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    nobody wrote:
    >> And here again strange as with me everything works and I just added the
    >> standard Packman that is in the YaST repo. I just installed MPlayer,
    >> MPlayer plugin and codec32 and it works.
    >>

    >
    > Guess that is the "problem" as I was trying to install amarok-1.14-10
    > & not MPlayer.....


    Amarok was already installed.

    houghi
    --
    >>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources

    for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
    do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 **** $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
    then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

  17. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Chris Cox wrote:
    > Yes... that's a bigger problem. I remember going back to one of my
    > old machines (top of the line in its day)... boy did it feel slow.
    > It's just not a (hw/sw) solvable problem.


    I have a 486 that I have and to me it is prety fast, but then all I do
    is use it to ssh to my main machine and then wrok from there in CLI. It
    is now out of commision, but perhaps I am going to re-start it and see
    if I can so something with it.

    houghi
    --
    >>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources

    for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
    do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 **** $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
    then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

  18. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > AFAIK, one needs a machine with parallel processors (not cores)
    > to do that. Operating system limitation.


    Then just re-write the OS. ;-)

    Are they working on it and what are the advantages?

    houghi
    --
    >>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources

    for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
    do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 **** $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
    then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

  19. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Paul J Gans wrote:

    > Chris Cox wrote:
    >>Paul J Gans wrote:
    >>...
    >>>
    >>> Especially in programs written to be run on a mulitprocessor.
    >>> Most older programs aren't. The only gain then is that the
    >>> running program *may* not be interrupted when system processes
    >>> having nothing to do with the program are run.

    >
    >>While true, a quick ps will show that you have more than one PROCESS
    >>running. And that exploits multiple CPUs... arguably more so than
    >>just having a few threaded apps.

    >
    >>I'd say the benefit for >99% of all users is in speed and smoothness
    >>WITHOUT any threaded applications.... it makes a HUGE difference.
    >>Processes are just really fat threads with better isolation and full
    >>contexts.

    >
    > Sure. I get that.
    >
    > What does seem to be impossible with a multicore machine is
    > to dedicate one core to a particular job and then let the other(s)
    > handle everything else.
    >
    > AFAIK, one needs a machine with parallel processors (not cores)
    > to do that. Operating system limitation.
    >

    Wrong

    http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7543786562.html
    http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/settin...r-process.html
    --
    Machine-Independent, adj.:
    Does not run on any existing machine.


  20. Re: 32 or 64 bit version of Suse Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >> AFAIK, one needs a machine with parallel processors (not cores)
    >> to do that. Operating system limitation.
    >>

    > Wrong
    >
    > http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7543786562.html
    > http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/settin...r-process.html


    As far as I can understand, both articles talk about multi-processors,
    not multi-core

    houghi
    --
    >>>> Run the following from the bashprompt if you have the kernel sources

    for I in `find /usr/src/linux/ -name *.c`; \
    do A=`grep -i -A 1 -B 1 **** $I`;if [ "$A" != "" ]; \
    then printf "$I \n$A \n\n"; fi ;done|less

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast