> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
> A Java int is defined to be 32-bits. Why would it have to be word-length
> on the stack? Is that documented anywhere, or does it just
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
So, back to the original question: will a 32-bit JVM on a 64-bit OS give
me a bigger heap potential than a 32-bit JVM on a 32-bit OS?
Depends entirely on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 3/14/2011 11:20 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:rosenberg.l...@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
>
>> I'm sorry, I probably
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chuck,
On 3/15/2011 9:02 AM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
>> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
>> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
>
>> A 32-bit process,
> From: peter.crowth...@googlemail.com [mailto:peter.crowth...@googlemail.com]
> On Behalf Of Peter Crowther
> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
> > Also, a Java int, when allocated on the stack, must take up the same number
> >
On 15 March 2011 13:02, Caldarale, Charles R wrote:
> Also, a Java int, when allocated on the stack, must take up the same number
> of bits as a pointer.
>
> That's an interesting space/time trade-off (I presume it's to prevent
excess arithmetic on stack value accesses). I wonder whether it's sti
> From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
> A 32-bit process, using 32-bit pointers, will enjoy a 2x speedup for
> those types of data.
Also, a Java int, when allocated on the stac
On 15 March 2011 07:36, Leon Rosenberg wrote:
> So a 64bit cpu has a 32bit mode, or how would a 32bit OS shrink the
> transmit size? I mean the registers stay the same?
Frequently, the bottleneck with realistic loads is access to main memory
(or, not quite equivalently, on-die cache size). Ass
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:20 AM, Caldarale, Charles R
wrote:
>> From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:rosenberg.l...@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
>
>> I'm sorry, I probably missed something, but why should 64 bit app
> From: Leon Rosenberg [mailto:rosenberg.l...@gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
> I'm sorry, I probably missed something, but why should 64 bit app on
> 64 bit os on 64 bit cpu be slower as 32 bit analog?
Because all t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin,
On 3/14/2011 5:44 PM, Justin Randall wrote:
> It really makes you wonder why caches and pipelines weren't scaled more
> proportionally.
Not to mention memory sizes in general. We got a 2^32-fold increase in
addressable memory. Great. Where i
on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
Sent: Mar 14, 2011 17:08
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin,
On 3/14/2011 3:45 PM, Justin Randall wrote:
> In general, it is technically possible for a 32-bit application to
> perform faster than a 64-bit application when runn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin,
On 3/14/2011 3:45 PM, Justin Randall wrote:
> In general, it is technically possible for a 32-bit application to
> perform faster than a 64-bit application when running on a 64-bit CPU
> because of CPU memory cache behaviour.
Also due to the
Users List
Reply-To: "Tomcat Users List"
Subject: Re: [OT] Followup on 32-bit versus 64-bit performance discussion(s)
I'm sorry, I probably missed something, but why should 64 bit app on
64 bit os on 64 bit cpu be slower as 32 bit analog?
regards
Leon
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:4
I'm sorry, I probably missed something, but why should 64 bit app on
64 bit os on 64 bit cpu be slower as 32 bit analog?
regards
Leon
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Christopher Schultz
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David,
>
> On 3/14/2011 1:36 PM, David kerber wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
On 3/14/2011 1:36 PM, David kerber wrote:
> On 3/14/2011 1:31 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>
>> I should have mentioned, we are in a Linux environment, so we have lots
>> of options. ;)
>
> Lucky you; I wish I could say the same...
You sho
On 3/14/2011 1:31 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
On 3/14/2011 1:22 PM, David kerber wrote:
On 3/14/2011 1:01 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
...
We are going into a production upgrade cycle and I'd like to plan for
the OS type: if we get n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David,
On 3/14/2011 1:22 PM, David kerber wrote:
> On 3/14/2011 1:01 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> We are going into a production upgrade cycle and I'd like to plan for
>> the OS type: if we get no benefit from running a 64-bit OS then
On 3/14/2011 1:01 PM, Christopher Schultz wrote:
...
We are going into a production upgrade cycle and I'd like to plan for
the OS type: if we get no benefit from running a 64-bit OS then I won't
bother installing one.
If you're using windows server machines, Server 2008 R2 (and maybe
Server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
All,
I've been thinking about the recent discussion(s) about 32-bit versus
64-bit performance on 64-bit hardware and I have a simple question:
what's the best deployment strategy for a Java webapp that doesn't
require *huge* amounts of memory, yet wan
20 matches
Mail list logo
