Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:29:26 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RAM not recognized Message-ID: <20080304142926.2308a530@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <47CD1FDC.9090007@datapipe.com> References: <47CC940B.5000400@123.com.sv> <47CC9BC0.1090408@datapipe.com> <18380.40222.870279.279849@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20080304034416.1ae48519@gumby.homeunix.com.> <18380.53126.160647.421844@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <47CD1FDC.9090007@datapipe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:09:32 -0600 "Paul A. Procacci" <pprocacci@datapipe.com> wrote: > Robert Huff wrote: > > RW writes: > > > > > >> And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently > >> than i386 > >> > > > > Would you care to elaborate? (A pointer will do.) > > > The only 'less efficient' thing 64-bit programs have, are larger > pointers as well as other potenial data items. Though I'm not sure > I'd consider this 'less efficient'. I would say that using more memory to achieve the same thing would be a reasonable definition of "using memory less efficiently". It depends on your application, for example IIRC squid uses about 40% more memory on large caches under amd64 because of the huge linked-lists it uses for indexing. At 4GB it's not a cut and dried choice even if there are no 64-bit compatibility problems.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080304142926.2308a530>