Article View: comp.arch
Article #12584Re: 64-bit chips, 32-bit compatibility?
From: John R. Mashey
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 02:51
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 02:51
43 lines
2625 bytes
2625 bytes
In article <JGJ.95Sep27130629@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com>, jgj@ssd.csd.harris.com (Jeff Jackson) writes:
|> And they weren't too far off. 32-bits is sufficient for nearly all
|> applications and probably will remain so for a few more releases of
|> MicroSoft Windows. ;-)
Since many people also believe this, but with no humor ...
1) *Most* applications *are* perfectly happy in 32-bit, i.e.,
the statement above is true ... but easily misleading, because:
2) However, if you need 100 apps, and 99 of them are 32-happy, but
*1* of them needs 64-bit, then you
may want 64-bit, especially if that app is important to you.
In the recent 64-bit initiative, the ISVs who came to
participate in the press conference were {Oracle, Sybase, Informix} ...
3) AS noted in an earlier posting, memory-mapped files, and files with
holes, burn virtual memory pretty fast. Some friends of ours created a
single 377GB file ... but I htink they just wrote & read it, rather than
mmaped it :-) Some of this may seem crazy, but it is even applicable for
fairly modest-sized machines, i.e:
a) You have time-series data collection, which may well leave
holes in the file.
b) You have very large design data bases.
In either case, a system may want to map the whole file into memory, and
only page-in those pages actually referenced in response to an
interactive session. On a large machine, you might get a large part of the
data into memory. On a small desktop, you could run the same code, but
might only be able to get reasonable performance on a smaller part of the
data. For instance, suppose your database is "Boeing 777": on *BIG*
machine, you get to see the whole thing at once ... on your desktop, maybe
you get one tray table :-) The nice thing is that programming can be
relatively straightforward and repsonds to the simple addition of more physical
memory.
-john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc>
UUCP: mash@sgi.com
DDD: 415-390-3090 FAX: 415-967-8496
USPS: Silicon Graphics 6L-005, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd, Mountain View, CA 94039-7311
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<44d2io$6tn@murrow.corp.sgi.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!mash.engr.sgi.com!mashReferences:
<43srit$94b@hermes.synopsys.com> <43tada$8i6@rbdc.rbdc.com> <jgkDFG9HJ.49x@netcom.com> <44boso$ies@dg-rtp.dg.com> <JGJ.95Sep27130629@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!mash.engr.sgi.com!mash From: mash@mash.engr.sgi.com (John R. Mashey) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.c Subject: Re: 64-bit chips, 32-bit compatibility? Date: 28 Sep 1995 02:51:04 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Message-ID: <44d2io$6tn@murrow.corp.sgi.com> References: <43srit$94b@hermes.synopsys.com> <43tada$8i6@rbdc.rbdc.com> <jgkDFG9HJ.49x@netcom.com> <44boso$ies@dg-rtp.dg.com> <JGJ.95Sep27130629@rcx1.ssd.csd.harris.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mash.engr.sgi.com