Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/i386/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
Why?
On 11/02/2016 10:41 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/i386/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
Why?
Have you looked at the file lists? I haven't (I don't have any 32-bit machines), but a first guess may be that the 32-bit version has both PAE and non-PAE kernels, libraries, etc., so you have more "stuff" to support the hardware environment adequately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Memory is the second thing to go, but I can't remember the first! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/02/2016 11:59 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/02/2016 10:41 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/i386/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
Why?
Have you looked at the file lists? I haven't (I don't have any 32-bit machines), but a first guess may be that the 32-bit version has both PAE and non-PAE kernels, libraries, etc., so you have more "stuff" to support the hardware environment adequately.
On the face of it, it sounds logical, but it makes no sense. I can understand that 64bit systems are supposed to support 32bit apps, but I have never come across a 32bit system that supports 64bit apps. Apps do not depend on low level PAE OS architecture.
On 11/03/16 07:10, jd1008 wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:59 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/02/2016 10:41 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso
14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/i386/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso
14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
Why?
Have you looked at the file lists? I haven't (I don't have any 32-bit machines), but a first guess may be that the 32-bit version has both PAE and non-PAE kernels, libraries, etc., so you have more "stuff" to support the hardware environment adequately.
On the face of it, it sounds logical, but it makes no sense. I can understand that 64bit systems are supposed to support 32bit apps, but I have never come across a 32bit system that supports 64bit apps. Apps do not depend on low level PAE OS architecture.
It makes perfect sense.
The PAE kernel allows for access of up to 64GB of RAM from a max of 4GB on 32 bit systems whose CPU's offer the PAE extension. Nothing to do with support of 32-bit v.s. 64-bit apps.
If you mount the WS-32bit iso and then mount the squashfs under LiveOS and then mount the rootfs.img under LiveOS of the mounted squashfs you'd see....
[egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls bin dev home lost+found mnt proc run srv tmp var boot etc lib media opt root sbin sys usr [egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls boot config-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE.img config-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE initrd-plymouth.img efi memtest86+-5.01 elf-memtest86+-5.01 System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 extlinux System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE grub2 vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686.img vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE
While with the WS-64bit iso you'd see
[egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls bin dev home lib64 media opt root sbin sys usr boot etc lib lost+found mnt proc run srv tmp var [egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls boot config-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64.img efi initrd-plymouth.img elf-memtest86+-5.01 memtest86+-5.01 extlinux System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64 grub2 vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64
On 11/02/2016 05:30 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 11/03/16 07:10, jd1008 wrote:
On 11/02/2016 11:59 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/02/2016 10:41 AM, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso
14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso http://mirrors.kernel.org/fedora/releases/24/Workstation/i386/iso/Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso
14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
Why?
Have you looked at the file lists? I haven't (I don't have any 32-bit machines), but a first guess may be that the 32-bit version has both PAE and non-PAE kernels, libraries, etc., so you have more "stuff" to support the hardware environment adequately.
On the face of it, it sounds logical, but it makes no sense. I can understand that 64bit systems are supposed to support 32bit apps, but I have never come across a 32bit system that supports 64bit apps. Apps do not depend on low level PAE OS architecture.
It makes perfect sense.
The PAE kernel allows for access of up to 64GB of RAM from a max of 4GB on 32 bit systems whose CPU's offer the PAE extension. Nothing to do with support of 32-bit v.s. 64-bit apps.
If you mount the WS-32bit iso and then mount the squashfs under LiveOS and then mount the rootfs.img under LiveOS of the mounted squashfs you'd see....
[egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls bin dev home lost+found mnt proc run srv tmp var boot etc lib media opt root sbin sys usr [egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls boot config-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE.img config-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE initrd-plymouth.img efi memtest86+-5.01 elf-memtest86+-5.01 System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 extlinux System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE grub2 vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686.img vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.i686+PAE
While with the WS-64bit iso you'd see
[egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls bin dev home lib64 media opt root sbin sys usr boot etc lib lost+found mnt proc run srv tmp var [egreshko@meimei iso2]$ ls boot config-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64 initramfs-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64.img efi initrd-plymouth.img elf-memtest86+-5.01 memtest86+-5.01 extlinux System.map-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64 grub2 vmlinuz-4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64
Thanks for elucidating that for me, Ed. I believe there's also differences in the library trees, too, for PAE and non-PAE.
JD, what Ed's saying is that 32-bit CPUs that do NOT have the PAE extensions can only access 4GB of RAM. The PAE extensions present on some CPUs permit access to 64GB of RAM. There are kernel differences between the two and I think (although I'm not certain) that there may be two different sets of libraries as well (or at least code in them to handle the differences). That can easily explain the size differences.
The only alternative would be for Fedora to offer two different sets of 32-bit disks, non-PAE and PAE-enabled. There's enough confusion with the disk sets as it stands now. I can sure see why they don't do it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Let us think the unthinkable. Let us do the undoable. Let us - - prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may - - not eff it up after all. - - -- Douglas Adams - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/03/16 08:51, Rick Stevens wrote:
Thanks for elucidating that for me, Ed. I believe there's also differences in the library trees, too, for PAE and non-PAE.
You're welcome.
Yes, for example, there are separate directory trees under /usr/lib/modules for the different kernels.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:08AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
I don't know the answer offhand, but do be aware that this looks more dramatic than the actual difference, because of rounding to whole GB values. The 64-bit iso is 1.47GiB while the 32-bit one is 1.60GiB — the actual difference is 129MiB. It just happens to straddle 1.5 so looks dramatic when rounded to whole numbers.
On 11/02/2016 05:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:08AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
I don't know the answer offhand, but do be aware that this looks more dramatic than the actual difference, because of rounding to whole GB values. The 64-bit iso is 1.47GiB while the 32-bit one is 1.60GiB — the actual difference is 129MiB. It just happens to straddle 1.5 so looks dramatic when rounded to whole numbers.
Wow! I didn't realize it was that close. The two kernels and ramdisks could explain that easily. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a - - rigged demo. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11/03/16 08:59, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/02/2016 05:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:08AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
I don't know the answer offhand, but do be aware that this looks more dramatic than the actual difference, because of rounding to whole GB values. The 64-bit iso is 1.47GiB while the 32-bit one is 1.60GiB — the actual difference is 129MiB. It just happens to straddle 1.5 so looks dramatic when rounded to whole numbers.
Wow! I didn't realize it was that close. The two kernels and ramdisks could explain that easily.
Yes, if you had both iso's you'd see....
-rw-rw-r--. 1 egreshko egreshko 1676673024 Jun 15 01:27 Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso -rw-rw-r--. 1 egreshko egreshko 1541406720 Jun 15 01:13 Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso
A difference of 135,266,304. :-)
On 11/02/2016 06:07 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 11/03/16 08:59, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/02/2016 05:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:08AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:13 1G Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso [...] 14-Jun-2016 17:27 2G
I don't know the answer offhand, but do be aware that this looks more dramatic than the actual difference, because of rounding to whole GB values. The 64-bit iso is 1.47GiB while the 32-bit one is 1.60GiB — the actual difference is 129MiB. It just happens to straddle 1.5 so looks dramatic when rounded to whole numbers.
Wow! I didn't realize it was that close. The two kernels and ramdisks could explain that easily.
Yes, if you had both iso's you'd see....
-rw-rw-r--. 1 egreshko egreshko 1676673024 Jun 15 01:27 Fedora-Workstation-Live-i386-24-1.2.iso -rw-rw-r--. 1 egreshko egreshko 1541406720 Jun 15 01:13 Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-24-1.2.iso
A difference of 135,266,304. :-)
I USED to have every ISO image ever made going back to FC1 (even some old Red Hat and Slackware stuff), but I started to prune the tree a couple of years ago. Now I only have the images I'll use (64-bit F18 through F24, both XFCE and server spins). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Never eat anything larger than your head - ----------------------------------------------------------------------