From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <dac0a5820711151610l376563dey1ff8c34b2933d745@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:10:05 -0800
From: "Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan" <vdharani@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Current status of amd64 port?
In-Reply-To: <b9d474d0e3c3532030194ca7f071c0ab@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <dac0a5820711151514y4d543604l65c28c4ca8594946@mail.gmail.com>
	<b9d474d0e3c3532030194ca7f071c0ab@coraid.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fc03a5ac-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

hi erik,

i got 2*1GB for $30 this week. next year, >4GB will be far cheaper.

on the 64-bit stuff, wouldnt it be nice to keep up with the hardware
advancement?

thanks
dharani

On 11/15/07, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
> On Thu Nov 15 18:14:18 EST 2007, vdharani@gmail.com wrote:
> > this question also came up in bay area plan9 meeting. would be nice to
> > know the status. i think unix adopted 32-bit earlier than other OSes.
> > but for 64-bit, others have gone ahead.
> >
>
> 64 bits is neither here nor there in a vaccuum.  you want 64 bits if
> a) you need more than 4GB of memory, or
> a) those extra registers and direct vlong really matter for performance.
> otherwise it's just a lot of extra zeros.
>
> it's kind of silly to run 64-bit linux on a machine with <= 4GB of memory.
>
> - erik
>