Looked at the scripts found minor differences have fixed those commit 499a8c0915dd25b3d9c813aa1b715ba9ba865ffb.
On 24/10/13 5:47 am, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote: >Slightly off topic but I've noticed that the scripts used to create the >vm templates are slightly out of sync between 32bit and 64bit. I just >assumed nobody used 64bit and that's why it got out of sync. > >Darren > >> On Oct 23, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Marty Sweet <msweet....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What would be the main reasoning behind this change? Surely the >> minimalistic specifications that SystemVMs are assigned suit 32-bit >>better >> in terms of Memory? >> >> "The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that, relative to >>32-bit >> architectures, the same data occupies more space in memory (due to >>longer >> pointers and possibly other types, and alignment padding). This >>increases >> the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for >> efficient processor cache utilization." >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Abhinandan Prateek < >> abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>>> On 23/10/13 3:48 pm, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Abhinandan Prateek >>>> <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are planning to make 64-bit system vm templates as default >>>>> offering in 4.2.1. >>>>> This is an initial email to have thoughts from the community on this. >>>>> >>>>> -abhi >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> Who is this we? >>>> I agree with Wido We adhere to semver, and accordingly 4.2.1 should be >>>> a bugfix release. >>> >>> We were some of the fellow committers, even I was of the same thinking >>>but >>> thought it will be good to have a general opinion. >>> >>> -abhi >>> >>>
