An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/private/bioc-devel/attachments/20050904/00ee41c9/attachment.pl
[Bioc-devel] Hardware
3 messages · Julien TEXTORIS, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, Seth Falcon
I'm not an expert by any means, but unless you have a fair amount of money and a fairly high frustration tolerance for open-source software, I'd stick with a 32-bit machine, at least for a couple of iterations of R, libraries, compilers, and operating systems.
Julien TEXTORIS wrote:
Hi, I have a question about which hardware would be the best for what i do. i'm analysing genomics data with R and bioconductor under linux. The chip has about 22000 spots, and the project deals with 200 patients. So that makes a lot of data to process. I was wodering if it was better to have a 32bit processor with a higher frequency, or a 64bit processor, but with a lower CPU speed ? I saw that there was a RPM package for 64bit processor for R, does it mean that it's optimized ? Thanks for your answers julien [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
2 days later
On 4 Sep 2005, znmeb at cesmail.net wrote:
I'm not an expert by any means, but unless you have a fair amount of money and a fairly high frustration tolerance for open-source software, I'd stick with a 32-bit machine, at least for a couple of iterations of R, libraries, compilers, and operating systems.
It is true that 64bit can introduce some... complications and things are smoother in 32-bit land. HOWEVER, I would recommend a 64bit system with as much ram as you can afford. If you have a choice of spending money on CPU vs RAM, choose more RAM. We run 64-bit Linux for our development work on Bioconductor. We have encountered some frustration with some external libraries, but R along with most CRAN and Bioconductor packages work out-of-the-box. Best, + seth