RAM not recognized

[RW]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:09:32 -0600
"Paul A. Procacci" <pprocacci at datapipe.com> wrote:

> Robert Huff wrote:
> > RW writes:
> >
> >   
> >>  And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently
> >>  than i386
> >>     
> >
> > 	Would you care to elaborate?  (A pointer will do.)
> >

> The only 'less efficient' thing 64-bit programs have, are larger 
> pointers as well as other potenial data items.  Though I'm not sure
> I'd consider this 'less efficient'.

I would say that using more memory to achieve the same thing would be a
reasonable definition of "using memory less efficiently". It depends on
your application, for example IIRC squid uses about 40% more memory on
large caches under amd64 because of the huge linked-lists it uses for
indexing.  

At 4GB it's not a cut and dried choice even if there are no
64-bit compatibility problems.