Re: I think I'm ready to give up on x86_64

["dj_segfault" <user=60@nabble.blu.org>]

 Nathan Meyers wrote: 

> J2EE works fine on 64-bit. The only Java libraries that need 32- and 
> 64-bit versions are those with underlying dependencies on the native 
> word lengths. J2SE defines the fundamental data types and object 
> addressing, so it naturally needs different versions. Pure-Java 
> libraries, like J2EE, shouldn't need different versions. 

...But I couldn't even install it.  I think what it was missing was 
libstdc++.5.s0, when my system had .6.so.  I found a compat rpm with 
.5.so, but it was 64 bit, so even after I installed it, and ran ldconfig 
for good measure, it still gave the same error. 

Ugh Using kyum, I found a i386 version, but when I tried to install it 
it said the repository checksum doesn't match, and to choose another 
mirror, which you can't do in kyum.  I exited kyum and tried to do it 
with yum, but the instance of yum that kyum started is still running. 
kyum didn't clean up its children before exiting. 

OK, so now I have it installed. When I run the 
java_ee_sdk-5_03_linux.bin, I get "*** glibc detected ***" and 
"malloc(): memory corruption", followed by a memory map.  Then it says 
"Deleting temporary files" and it hung there.  I had to kill -9 it. 

I hate this crap. 

>> Before I waste more time tracking down problems caused by running 
>> x86_64, I need to decide if it's actually worth it.  From what I 
>> understand, the only advantages of 64 bit over 32 bit are access to 
>> more than 4GB RAM (not a problem for me, since I only have 2GB), and 
>> memory mapping large files (not an issue for the same reason).  Am I 
>> missing something? 
> Not that I can think of. 64 bits also places higher demands on the 
> system: more bits to sling around the bus and greater load on the heap 
> from the larger words. Unless you need that address space, moving to 64 
> bits is pure downside.