Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.
318 views

eDirectory 64 bits vs 32 bits


Hello,

Beside System architecture, is 64 bits eDirectory significantly more
performant that 32 bits ?

What are the real advantages of 64 bits ? caching performance ? ...

Regards


--
iammi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iammi's Profile: https://forums.netiq.com/member.php?userid=382
View this thread: https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?t=46614

Labels (1)
0 Likes
3 Replies
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: eDirectory 64 bits vs 32 bits

On 23.01.2013 10:54, iammi wrote:
> Beside System architecture, is 64 bits eDirectory significantly more
> performant that 32 bits ?
>
> What are the real advantages of 64 bits ? caching performance ?


This has been discussed before:
https://forums.netiq.com/showthread.php?43971-32bit-vs-64bit-eDir&referrerid=461

If you aren't using IDM and you don't have a huge DIB, then you are
likely going to be just as happy sticking with 32 bit eDirectory.

Memory limitations are what has pushed us to x64 for eDirectory. This is
particularly an issue with IDM. Even with drivers moved to remote
loaders, some operations (like processing input files from delimited
text drivers - especially where the input file can't be split up into
individual records) really chew up memory on the engine (and thus
eDirectory).

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex McHugh
NetIQ Knowledge Partner http://forums.netiq.com

Please post questions in the forums. No support is provided via email.
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: eDirectory 64 bits vs 32 bits

> If you aren't using IDM and you don't have a huge DIB, then you are likely
> going to be just as happy sticking with 32 bit eDirectory.
>
> Memory limitations are what has pushed us to x64 for eDirectory. This is
> particularly an issue with IDM. Even with drivers moved to remote loaders,
> some operations (like processing input files from delimited text drivers -
> especially where the input file can't be split up into individual records)
> really chew up memory on the engine (and thus eDirectory).


Also keep in mind that it seems likely that eDirectory will soon be 64-bit
only (on platforms where that is supported) simply to reduce testing.
Nobody in the last five years should have even been able to buy a
server-class machine that wasn't sparc64 or x86_64 capable (I bought my
fir x86_64 machine ten years ago now, and that was just a consumer system)
so the sooner you get there the more experience you'll have once you just
need to go there. Assuming you're on x86_32 (since this is the Linux
forum and not Unix generally) there may be a few other libraries required
so that x86_32 stuff runs on an x86_64 system. Big deal? Not really.
Performance-related? Not really, but x86_64 is seldom about performance
(in the processing sense) and more about the ability to use more memory
or just avoid running out in a single process when the system has more to
give).

Good luck.
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: eDirectory 64 bits vs 32 bits

On 01/23/2013 01:14 PM, ab wrote:
>> If you aren't using IDM and you don't have a huge DIB, then you are likely
>> going to be just as happy sticking with 32 bit eDirectory.
>>
>> Memory limitations are what has pushed us to x64 for eDirectory. This is
>> particularly an issue with IDM. Even with drivers moved to remote loaders,
>> some operations (like processing input files from delimited text drivers -
>> especially where the input file can't be split up into individual records)
>> really chew up memory on the engine (and thus eDirectory).

>
> Also keep in mind that it seems likely that eDirectory will soon be 64-bit
> only (on platforms where that is supported) simply to reduce testing.
> Nobody in the last five years should have even been able to buy a
> server-class machine that wasn't sparc64 or x86_64 capable (I bought my
> fir x86_64 machine ten years ago now, and that was just a consumer system)
> so the sooner you get there the more experience you'll have once you just
> need to go there. Assuming you're on x86_32 (since this is the Linux
> forum and not Unix generally) there may be a few other libraries required
> so that x86_32 stuff runs on an x86_64 system. Big deal? Not really.
> Performance-related? Not really, but x86_64 is seldom about performance
> (in the processing sense) and more about the ability to use more memory
> or just avoid running out in a single process when the system has more to
> give).
>
> Good luck.
>

so true. And therefore time to get sdidiag 'out-of-the-box' on 64Bit....
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.