The future of 32-bit TCL

[fransdb]

I have run for a very long time (Open)SuSE distributions on my 32-bit mail/web-server. It is still working fine and quick enough to keep on doing so for the foreseeable future in my home.
Some funny facts: it's a slot-1 machine with 640 MB RAM but upgraded CPU. Lots of disk space too.

For some time now there are discussions that distro's stop the 32-bit developments. In fact OpenSuSE has already stopped.
Since it is for a server only, with a minimal graphical interface (mostly for monitoring tools), Tiny Core might be solution.

Are there any plans to abandon 32-bit development within the TC community?
I ask this also because TC has also an 64-bit environment which need to be maintained/developed too.

Regards, Frans.

[Rich]

Hi fransdb
That subject was brought up in another thread several months ago. As I recall, the response was that 32 bit will not be dropped.

[bmarkus]

No plan to drop 32-bit version.

[hiro]

the 64 bit versions didn't ever take off properly imo (for example no dcore for it).
i've only ever been using 32bit userland.

[curaga]

No plans to drop 32-bit, but for an internet-facing server you should consider something with paid support, to get patches with guaranteed response times. Of course, an up-to-date TC will be better than an outdated Suse/Fedora/etc once they drop 32-bit.

OpenBSD also keeps support for older architectures as long as possible, and would be a good choice for a public server.

[Juanito]

I use 64-bit almost all of the time, but believe that we should keep 32-bit.

[fransdb]

I already keep most critical software up-to-date myself on my current system. Need only a few more now.

As for the former discussion: the only thing I found was a discussion about the extensions, not the TCB itself.

Ok, I give it a go and rebuild my server based on TCL.

Thanks for the replies.
Frans.

[andyj]

I use 64-bit TC for my internet facing servers, but then I'm maintaining almost all of the extensions I use so I know they're up to date. They take a pounding; I have the iptables syslogs saved to a postgresql database to prove it. 32-bit extensions don't seem to be as maticulously maintained, so it's probably best to use it only for personal/hobby systems.

But I have to ask: I have more than a few 32 bit systems that I paid a lot for, and I get the idea of not wanting to junk something that still works, but new 64-bit systems are fairly cheap and use a lot less electricity. Given the compute power to power consumed ratio, is it really worth keeping our old 32-bit systems lit up?

[ulfr]

   For what its worth,
   my vote is to keep 32 bit if it is not too much work.
   I only use 32 bit.  It works with both 32 and 64 
   and there is no real performance advantage to 64 bit for me.
   This is especially true for a distro like tinycore
   which will be chosen for both low and high end hardware.
   
   Anyway,  thanks again for making tinycore.
   Its a masterpiece.
   The best designed distro there is. 

   ulfr

[curaga]

Slot 1 cpus seem to consume 20-30W. That's comparable to Atoms, and would need some really expensive electricity to pay off.

[andyj]

I'm not using 64-bit for performance. I would assume that 32-bit and 64-bit on the same processor are pretty much the same. The difference is in address space. No, Bill, 640K is not enough. 

[Juanito]

It also depends on what you do.

If you set ffmpeg to do something difficult, it can be more than 10% quicker on 64-bit as compared to 32-bit on the same machine.

If you compile something large that will not compile in ram on 32-bit (i.e. you have to compile the source on a hd), 64-bit  can be over an hour faster  compiling in ram (as long as you have enough ram to avoid using a hd).

[andyj]

It might be an interesting survey to see which apps use 64-bit ints and floats vs. 32-bit. Also, the newer 64-bit processors have more instructions so the compilers can optimize for those. For RAM, does the TC 32-bit kernel support PAE? I don't have such a system to check it out, but maybe someone does?

[Juanito]

corepure64 extensions are compiled with "-mtune=generic" so I don't believe there will be any benefit for newer processors.

I don't believe the tc 32-bit kernel supports PAE, but the tc 64-bit kernel can be used with the 32-bit initrd so that each app has access to up to 4gb ram.

[curaga]

Yeah, no PAE support, as per Linus' recommendation. Most hw with over 4GB RAM is able to run the 64-bit kernel, which is much more efficient in addressing gobs of memory.