tinycore vs tinycore64

[wysiwyg]

Good morning everyone!  I have been looking through some of the extensions for the 32bit version of TC and noticed that there are two different packages for things like alsa-modules.  Whats the difference between alsa-modules-4.2.9-tinycore64.tcz and alsa-modules-4.2.9-tinycore.tcz?  I would assume that the former is for the 64bit version of the OS whereas the latter is for 32bit, but then why is it in the 32bit repo?

Thanks,
Dave

[Juanito]

You can have three versions of tinycore:

core - 32-bit kernel modules + 32-bit apps
core64 - 64-bit kernel modules + 32-bit apps
corepure64 - 64-bit kernel modules + 64-bit apps

core - core.gz (or rootfs.gz + modules.gz) + vmlinuz
core64 - rootfs.gz + modules64.gz + vmlinuz64
corepure64 - corepure64.gz (or rootfs64.gz + modules64.gz) + vmlinuz64

The difference between alsa-modules-4.2.9-tinycore64.tcz and alsa-modules-4.2.9-tinycore.tcz is that the former contains 64-bit kernel modules and the latter contains 32-bit kernel modules.

[andyj]

I'm guessing it's not multilib? Meaning you can't mix 32 and 64 bit apps, it's one or the other?

[Juanito]

core and core64 can only use 32-bit extensions

corepure64 can only use 64-bit extensions

[wysiwyg]

Thanks for the response Juanito.  Why would there be the core64 - what purpose or use case would that satisfy?

[Juanito]

core - all apps have to share up to a maximum of 4gb ram
core64 - each app can use up to a maximum of 4gb ram

[wysiwyg]

Thanks again for the reply Juanito.  I guess I could ask the question like this, why not just have a 32 and 64 bit version?  Why would someone want a mixed environment between 32 and 64bit?

[Juanito]

core64 came quite a while before corepure64...

[curaga]

If your hardware is capable, it's always worth it to run a 64-bit kernel. It's faster, more secure, and has less limitations. Whether 64-bit userspace is useful to you, that depends on many things: do you have programs that need more than 4gb RAM, or heavily use the cpu, etc.

[Misalf]

There is no PAE enabled kernel of Core. If one wants to use more than 4 GB RAM, a 64 bit kernel can be used.

The webs says that many 64 bit compiled apps are not optimized for 64 bit code-wise, but actually provide the same performance as if they would run on 32 bit. Any truth in this?

[curaga]

It's a "it depends". Most programs are faster on x86_64 due to additional registers, but use more RAM due to larger pointers.

[wysiwyg]

Thanks for the continued replies everyone!  I would assume that if someone has a 64 bit machine, they will have upgraded specs (since that will be a newer machine than older 32bit) so they should have the resources to take advantage of a complete 64 bit environment - I agree with Curaga.  I think the answer (at least that makes sense to me) was given by Juanito in that core64 was released before corepure64.  In that instance, and since no clear advantage was pointed out about having a mixed 32/64bit environment, does it make sense to continue the core64?  Just curious...

Thanks,
Dave

[curaga]

does it make sense to continue the core64?  Just curious...

It doesn't use any resources. The kernel is the same for both 64-bit combinations.

[wysiwyg]

does it make sense to continue the core64?  Just curious...

It doesn't use any resources. The kernel is the same for both 64-bit combinations.

Not necessary true.  Someone has to compile and maintain those packages.  And without any clear advantage to using them, it would seem like a waste of that persons resources (time, power, etc) - at least to me.  As stated, if someone is already going to be running a 64bit kernel, why not just run with the 64bit extensions to get the advantages of them...

[Juanito]

Someone has to compile and maintain those packages.

core64 shares application extensions with core and kernel extensions with corepure64