Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2441 invoked from network); 29 Jul 2007 12:52:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 29 Jul 2007 12:52:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 41671 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jul 2007 12:52:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-tomcat-users-archive@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 41641 invoked by uid 500); 29 Jul 2007 12:52:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list users@tomcat.apache.org Received: (qmail 41629 invoked by uid 99); 29 Jul 2007 12:52:11 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 05:52:11 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [88.198.191.179] (HELO zoe.2sheds.de) (88.198.191.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:52:05 +0000 Received: from [192.168.3.107] (p5498CCD0.dip.t-dialin.net [84.152.204.208]) by zoe.2sheds.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E17168001 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:51:42 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <46AC895C.2070407@albourne.com> References: <11804198.post@talk.nabble.com> <46A8ECAA.7090407@christopherschultz.net> <46AA718A.7070508@mdl.com> <46AACA03.2090501@mdl.com> <46AC895C.2070407@albourne.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Andrew Miehs Subject: Re: Tomcat with 8 GB memory Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:52:00 +0200 To: "Tomcat Users List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 29/07/2007, at 2:34 PM, Peter Stavrinides wrote: > 32 bits processors can represent numbers up to 4,294,967,295 while > a 64-bit machine can represent numbers up to > 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. For modern hardware to take advantage > of the processing power of the 64 bit architecture a system must > have a minimum 4GB Ram, but probably needs significantly more and > more importantly the CAPACITY to take full advantage of it, > allocating it to running processes, with less there is potential > for lag. > 64bit machines have been around since the 60's but only now are > software and hardware vendors supporting it for the mainstream > market. So is 64bit better than 32bit right now? the answer is yes, > a 64-bit processor has more technology, a better design with more > transistors, thus faster speeds are possible. This is currently > where the true benefit of switching to a 64-bit processor lays, it > has nothing to do with the memory address space, which is exactly > that, just space for more complex computations. This is definitely not looking at the big picture. Whether or not to go 64bit depends on your application. BASED ON MY TESTS.... If your application runs in Java AND you are using Sun JVM 1.5 AND performance is an issue, then I would definitely go 64bit linux. else if your Java application doesn't have a performance requirement, but needs lots of memory, be that for caching or anything else, then I would use 64 bit - Pick your own operating system... else if the machine you are using has more than 4GB RAM, I would look at using a 64bit OS, - up to you whether you want 32bit or 64bit Java. else if none of this applies to you, I would probably run a 32 bit OS, and wait for someone to port the last remaining packages/ drivers. BTW More transistors mean less CPU clock speed - not more... (But I think you meant larger operations per cycle). Cheers Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To start a new topic, e-mail: users@tomcat.apache.org To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org