| To: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Kernel 2.6 for R4600 Indy |
| From: | Robin Humble <rjh@cita.utoronto.ca> |
| Date: | Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:43:34 -0400 |
| In-reply-to: | <415420D0.60102@gentoo.org> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <4152D58B.608@longlandclan.hopto.org> <4152E4FC.8000408@gentoo.org> <41536765.9000304@longlandclan.hopto.org> <41541B8D.3060500@gentoo.org> <20040924131734.GC26710@lemming.cita.utoronto.ca> <415420D0.60102@gentoo.org> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:27:44AM -0400, Stephen P. Becker wrote: >Mostly, 64-bit binaries are much larger than 32-bit. Consider that the >scsi controller in an Indy gets about 2mb/sec throughput MAX (on a good /usr/bin/e* on i386 vs x86_64 is 17432 vs 12440 kB => about 40% bigger. so indeed that's a fair bit larger :-) I didn't think it was quite as bad as 2MB/s though, maybe 4. I'll dig my Indys out of storage and give them a whirl. >day). Also, Indys don't support a large enough memory configuration >that 64-bit would be worth it anyhow. indeed they don't. do you get access to more registers or more efficient instruction sets like you do on x86_64? >What you would *really* want on such a machine would be n32 userland. >You get full 64-bit instructions, but the binaries aren't huge. fair enough. cheers, robin |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Kernel 2.6 for R4600 Indy, Stephen P. Becker |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: __stq_u parameter (and related XFS filesystem 1.3 & 1.3.1 problems on 2.4.x), Pavel Kiryukhin |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 for R4600 Indy, Stephen P. Becker |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Kernel 2.6 for R4600 Indy, Stephen P. Becker |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |