Hi All, I did quite a bit of performance comparison with XDS between two centOS 5 (64 vs 32) and did notice performance boost when writing results to a remote NFS directory. Interestingly, using same OSs writing locally the performance boost was not noticeable. At the time I thought that somehow the temporary files that XDS was creating on the 32bit OS were better handled in memory instead. This off course was done using 32bit compiled XDS vs 64 bit compiled XDS. I did not try to run the 32bit XDS on the 64 bit OS. Maybe I should. This was done on particular machines configuration and would not generalize to all programs and situations.
On the topic of 64 bit vs 32 which to choose? Funny enough I can't get iMosflm running reliably on 32 bit CentOS 5 or CentOS 6 and I can on 64 bits versions. We have all running (CCP4, Coot, iMosflm, XDS, phenix, best, etc, etc) running in 64 bit and intent to move all user computers to uniform 64 bit environment on the next shutdown as it is more difficult to support both 32 and 64 bit enviroment. David -- David Aragao, PhD | Research Fellow - MX | Australian Synchrotron p: (03) 8540 4121 | f: (03) 8540 4200 | m: 0467 775 203 david.ara...@synchrotron.org.au | www.synchrotron.org.au 800 Blackburn Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia ________________________________________ From: Roger Rowlett [rrowl...@colgate.edu] Sent: 04 April 2012 20:13 Subject: Re: Who is using 64-bit Linux? Thanks everyone for the info. To summarize, it looks like 64-bit Linux is not the issue it was a few years ago for crystallography software. Many typically used crystallography packages are compiled for 64 bit now and the ia32 libs typically provide compatibility for those not yet compiled as 64 bit binaries. Cheers, Roger Rowlett On Apr 4, 2012 6:06 AM, "Roger Rowlett" <rrowl...@colgate.edu<mailto:rrowl...@colgate.edu>> wrote: A 32 bit Linux OS with PAE enabled (which is all of the current Linux distros) can actually address 64 Gb of memory, but no more than 3 Gb per process. 3 Gb may not be that much of a limitation for many processes, so large performance increases on a 64-bit system compared to a 32-bit may be difficult to observe in practice for now. Roger Rowlett On Apr 4, 2012 5:09 AM, "Tim Gruene" <t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de<mailto:t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de>> wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tom, because there are PCs out there with more than 200GB RAM, as well as programs and systems that make use of them. As far as I understand a 32-bit compiled kernel would have not possibility to address anything beyong 4GB. Regards, Tim On 04/04/12 10:53, Tom Peat wrote: > Hello Tim, > > I believe the notion comes about as one can thread 64 instead of 32 addresses > concurrently, thereby boosting performance. If it has no performance boost, > why would they bother? > > Cheers, tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Gruene > [mailto:t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de<mailto:t...@shelx.uni-ac.gwdg.de>] > Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 6:43 PM > To: Peat, Tom (CMSE, Parkville) > Cc: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Who is using 64-bit Linux? > > Dear Tom, > > 64-bit is about memory addressing - why would you expect a performance > boost? I have wondered where this notion originated from. > > Cheers, > Tim > > On 04/03/12 22:07, Tom Peat wrote: >> We use the 64 bit Centos (Red Hat) distro and CCP4, Coot, etc seem to work >> fine on this. >> I can't say I notice a big performance boost from the 64 bit side of things. >> Maybe I'm just impatient. >> cheers, tom > > >> Tom Peat >> Biophysics Group >> CSIRO, CMSE >> 343 Royal Parade >> Parkville, VIC, 3052 >> +613 9662 7304<tel:%2B613%209662%207304> >> +614 57 539 419<tel:%2B614%2057%20539%20419> >> tom.p...@csiro.au >> ________________________________________ >> From: CCP4 bulletin board >> [CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>] On Behalf Of Roger >> Rowlett [rrowl...@colgate.edu<mailto:rrowl...@colgate.edu>] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 5:57 AM >> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> >> Subject: [ccp4bb] Who is using 64-bit Linux? > >> The time has come for me to upgrade my Linux OS to something more recent >> for me and my student workstations. A 32-bit distro is certainly >> conservative and compatible with CCP4 and Coot, but it seems like that >> solution hobbles my hardware and puts some limitations on available >> memory, even with PAE enabled. So who is using a 64-bit distro these >> days, and are there lingering issues of compatibility and dependency >> hell with commonly used XRD software, like CCP4, Coot, iMOSFLM etc.? > >> Ubuntu 12.04 LTS (beta) actually works OK with one simple workaround for >> the global menu for CCP4 and Coot, and wine compatibility is fine for >> running CrysalisPro in the same environment, so it's really comes down >> to whether or not the extra performance of a 64-bit OS is worth the pain >> of compatibility issues for XRD software. Any thoughts? > >> Cheers, > >> _______________________________________ >> Roger S. Rowlett >> Gordon & Dorothy Kline Professor >> Department of Chemistry >> Colgate University >> 13 Oak Drive >> Hamilton, NY 13346 > >> tel: (315)-228-7245<tel:%28315%29-228-7245> >> ofc: (315)-228-7395<tel:%28315%29-228-7395> >> fax: (315)-228-7935<tel:%28315%29-228-7935> >> email: rrowl...@colgate.edu<mailto:rrowl...@colgate.edu> > > - -- - -- Dr Tim Gruene Institut fuer anorganische Chemie Tammannstr. 4 D-37077 Goettingen GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFPfA/AUxlJ7aRr7hoRAmfDAKDleNNb2BVxcNIHg7x81ks3gK5BpACgzQ9J DwQDnMorze1xjTZ+0qqacEg= =wVwe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>This message and any attachments may contain proprietary or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or you received the message in error, you must not use, copy or distribute the message. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original message. Thank you.
