From owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org  Tue Oct 18 08:41:14 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE1EC150F9
 for <freebsd-virtualization@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su)
Received: from relay2.tomsk.ru (mail.sibptus.tomsk.ru [212.73.124.5])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1BB4998
 for <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:41:12 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su)
X-Virus-Scanned: by clamd daemon 0.98.5_1 for FreeBSD at relay2.tomsk.ru
Received: from [212.73.125.240] (HELO admin.sibptus.transneft.ru)
 by relay2.tomsk.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.16)
 with ESMTPS id 39386371; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:40:49 +0600
Received: from admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (sudakov@localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u9I8fAXg060325;
 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:41:10 +0700 (KRAT)
 (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su)
Received: (from sudakov@localhost)
 by admin.sibptus.transneft.ru (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) id u9I8f77D060324;
 Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:41:07 +0700 (KRAT)
 (envelope-from vas@mpeks.tomsk.su)
X-Authentication-Warning: admin.sibptus.transneft.ru: sudakov set sender to
 vas@mpeks.tomsk.su using -f
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:41:07 +0700
From: Victor Sudakov <vas@mpeks.tomsk.su>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: choice of i386 vs amd64 guest
Message-ID: <20161018084107.GA60191@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru>
References: <20161018015903.GA42265@admin.sibptus.transneft.ru>
 <58058A64.6010908@redbarn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <58058A64.6010908@redbarn.org>
Organization: AO "Svyaztransneft", SibPTUS
X-PGP-Key: http://www.dreamwidth.org/pubkey?user=victor_sudakov
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 10E3 1171 1273 E007 C2E9  3532 0DA4 F259 9B5E C634
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports."
 <freebsd-virtualization.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-virtualization-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 08:41:14 -0000

Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> > 
> > When I must run several FreeBSD guests in bhyve, should I prefer i386
> > or amd64 guests provided a guest will never need more than 2-3 GB of
> > RAM? 
> 
> if you're running bind9, the sizeof(void *) will dominate your heap
> size, and a 32-bit guest will be better overall, given that you don't
> need the larger addressing size.

Those guests will be running web servers mostly.

> 
> for everything else, the larger register set on amd64 will matter more,
> and you should probably use a 64-bit guest.

There is an opinion that 64-bit systems use up more resources than
32-bit ones for the same tasks, it that not true?

-- 
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
sip:sudakov@sibptus.tomsk.ru