[PlanetCCRMA] 64bit vs 32bit

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 14:39 +0100, Henrik Frisk wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
> <nando at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>         On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 22:48 +0100, Henrik Frisk wrote:
>         > Hi,
>         >
>         >
>         > I know this discussion has been held to some extent on this
>         list and
>         > quite frequently on the Fedora list, but I really need some
>         advice
>         > here. When I bought my new laptop (MacBook Pro 5,2) last
>         summer I
>         > installed FC11 x86_64 thinking that was the better choice.
>         I'm not so
>         > sure anymore and I'm thinking about 'downgrading' to 32 bit.
>         The main
>         > reason is there is software I like that doesn't come in a
>         64-bit
>         > versions in addition to the fact that I can't seem to get
>         the CCRMA RT
>         > kernel running. Getting the RT kernel working is a priority
>         for me
>         > because I can't seem to get decent performance from the
>         Fedora kernel
>         > (2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.x86_64). Constant troubles with
>         flash/flex
>         > and other proprietary software that I smoetimes depend on
>         adds to the
>         > frustration.
>         >
>         >
>         > Any thoughts/suggestions? If I decide to reinstall, should I
>         go for
>         > FC11 or FC12 32-bit? Or, is FC12 64-bit "better" than FC11
>         (from what
>         > I cant tell it is not, but I may be wrong here)?
>         
>         
>         I'd install fc12 although I have not yet remade the
>         planetccrma-apps
>         meta package. Newer kernels mean better support for newer
>         hardware, I
>         don't know if that is the case with your macbook (there's
>         going to be a
>         2.6.33 based rt package very very soon).
>         
>         At ccrma we still run 32 bit Fedora on all workstations...
>         
>         > My priority is to get a laptop that is stable and with low
>         enough
>         > latency to be useful in performance. I'm primarily working
>         in Pd, Snd,
>         > Ardour, Audacity and Chuck and I'm about to replace my
>         Edirol US25 USB
>         > interface with a RME Cardbus with a Multiface II.
>         
>         
>         Well, pd is not yet there for 64 bits (the latest pd-extended
>         official
>         release, not the plain pd which I think may be happy in 64 bit
>         envs).
>         And chuck is still happy only in 32 bit land. It may be
>         possible to
>         install and run the 32 bit binaries in a 64 bit environment
>         but I have
>         not tried (and will not try :-)
>         
> A recent test I read proved that a 64 bit (Linux) system has better
> performance than a 32 bit (I'll dig it up if someones interested) 

It'd be nice to see it. Is the test relevant to the workflow you have? 

How big is the improvement and under which conditions?

> but I'm happy to swap that potential performance improvement for
> compatibility and stability.

My preferences are exactly opposite. I don't see the point of
performance improvements if the tradeoff is, for example, stability.
Depends on what you do, I guess. 

If you run batch calculations and the computer occasionally freezes and
the time you spend rebooting is less that what you gain, well, maybe. On
the other hand, if you are using the computer for live performance.....

-- Fernando


> I have built my own version of Pd vanilla that works fine on my 64-bit
> system but I've given up on Chuck. 
> 
> 
> I think I will go for FC12 32bit. Thanks for the input everyone!