On 31/07/10 14:39, Liam Proven wrote: > On 31 July 2010 13:32, David<lists2...@trancepod.netmx.co.uk> wrote: >> >> As I said, I don't think I have any real need for 64-bit, so if trying >> to set up a 64-bit system to meet all my requirements would be a *real* >> pain, then I'd probably be best not bothering, but if only a relatively >> small amount of pain is involved (I'm fairly experienced with Linux and >> have little fear of the command line), then maybe it might be worth a >> go. > > You'll never notice the difference. It's quick, though, and I like the > "feeling" of knowing that I'm running a native 64-bit OS. >
My experience wasn't as good. Running a 64-Bit OS caused me a few issues, including with Flash on some stuff. Worst thing was LogMeIn, I ended up installing the Windows 32-Bit Firefox in Wine to use LogMeIn. Suffice to say I'm back on 32-Bit now, works fine with 4GB Ram. Saying that you can run 32-Bit apps in a 32-Bit Chroot (I used to do this a while back on Ubuntu 7.10 I believe) to get Flash on Firefox before the 64-Bit builds came out. >> If I could also ask a couple of related questions: >> >> What's the general view on the size of the swap partition these days? Is >> 2x RAM still the best policy? > > Up to 1GB RAM, yes. For>1GB RAM, for ordinary use, a 2GB swap > partition is plenty. It's all I have and I never use more than a > hundred meg or so. (4GB RAM, typical workload Firefox + Chrome + > Pidgin + Skype + OpenOffice + Nautilus + Gedit + a few terminals + > BOINC + Transmission.) > I've got about 512MB swap on my 4GB machine, I think the highest swap usage has been about 200MB and that's with a whole load of Firefox tabs open and some other stuff. I gather though if you want to do things like hibernating then you need as much swap space as you have memory, possibly a bit extra too (last time I tried hibernating I had 4GB swap and 4GB memory and I believe about 100MB of swap was being used so it failed to hibernate). >> ext3 v ext4? I've heard various grumbles about ext4 being slower (I >> think it was something to do with rewriting files during software >> updates in particular? - I've forgotten the exact details), and it also >> still seems a bit 'new' ..or am I just worrying too much? > > I avoid ext4 for now, myself, but I only have "tiny" twin 120GB EIDE > disks. (Most of my data lives on a server, ironically running Windows > 2008 Server.) If you have terabyte drives, it might be worth it. > If you have big drives EXT4 does speed checking them up, when my 320GB drive was formatted to EXT3 I could be waiting 10 minutes for a disc check (or there abouts), where as with EXT4 it didn't take half as long (one minute if that). Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
