Usability - Productivity - Business - The web - Singapore & Twins

What if IBM would drop support for 32Bit Domino on Linux in favour of 64Bit?

Domino Server 8.5.x is available on a lot of platforms in a lot of versions:
  1. Linux for z/OS - 64 Bit
  2. Linux on Intel - 32 Bit (runs well on 64 Bit OS)
  3. Solaris - 32 Bit (runs well on 64 Bit OS)
  4. System i - 128 Bit
  5. System p - 64 Bit (32 if you ask very nicely)
  6. Windows Server 2003-2008 - 32 Bit (also can run on 64 Bit OS)
  7. Windows Server 2003-2008 - 64 Bit
What is obviously missing is a 64 Bit version for Linux on Intel (Linux here means: Redhat or Suse, Ubuntu isn't on the official server list [yet?]). Technically is isn't a problem since IBM has a 64Bit Linux version running. It boils down to customer demand and support cost. Every additional platform increases support effort (translated: fixes take longer). Occasionally IBM drops platforms from future versions of Domino (like: Netware, OS/2 or HP/UX).

So I'm wondering:
What would happen if IBM drops -in a future version- support for 32Bit Linux in favour of 64Bit Linux?
Would that be an issue in 201x? What's your take?

To make this crystal clear: This is me wondering, this is not any official IBM inquiry or a disclosure of any IBM plans.

Posted by on 07 April 2010 | Comments (c) | categories: IBM Notes Lotus Notes


  1. posted by ursus on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    Basically I wouldn't really mind - although I currently do not have any 64 bit servers I would then just install a couple :o)
  2. posted by Dag Kvello on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    IBM should drop the 32-bit Servers alltogether (all platforms) in future versions (8.5.2 and forward).
    If You don't have a 64-bit capable server today, then its at least 6 years old. Time to buy new HW.
    12-32GB RAM is cheap, even for a home user (I do HW speccing every day and I know its cheaper to put 32GB in a server than buying an iPad).

    Remove all 32-bit "issues" and go 64bit. Never look back.

    P.S. It annoys me that I have to tell customers to boy 2008x64 to run a 64-bit Domino server.
  3. posted by Darren Duke on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    To be quite frank here IBM is to blame for the platform support. Sametime and Quickr do not have x64 versions so you have to run 32 bit. Fast forward to Quickr 8.5 and Linux support and you'll need 32 bit again I would guess.

    The world is standardizing on 64 bit software on the server and Domino is suffering from (another) perception issue by NOT having a 64 Linux version and by NOT having Quickr 64 bit support.

    As you point out large amounts of RAM can really help Domino (even as a mail server).

    I agree with @4, if you don't have x64 hardware, time for an upgrade.
  4. posted by Julian Buss on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    dropping 32bit for 64bit would be very welcome.
    I like to have LInux Domino Servers with lots of memory.
  5. posted by Stuart McIntyre on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    Yes, 64-bit is now more important to my customers than 32-bit, whether on Windows or Linux. I therefore echo Darren's point re: Quickr and Sametime - 64-bit support on the server and clients (i.e. connectors) is vital going forward.

    However, my main beef is with the releases that are listed as supported - e.g. Lotus Connections is only supported on Redhat 4.7. Yes, 4.7!! That is with 5.4 being the latest release out there in the wild.

    So, if it would be possible for 64-bit to be supported without further holding up support for the latest versions, then go for it! Emoticon wink.gif
  6. posted by Felix Binsack on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    You can drop 32Bit all together on all platforms. Just make 64Bit work really nice.
  7. posted by Nick Halliwell on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    The only issues I have is that for small systems like branch office server or small business servers. Then you really don't need that extra RAM, if you are running 40 mail users, then 3 Gb of RAM is just fine.

    I understand there is no cost to running a 64 Bit server, but if you have a 32 Bit server and then wish to upgrade to a future version of Notes then you do have the expense and disruption of converting the OS to 64 Bit.

    But I do agree that all servers going in now should be 64 Bit.
  8. posted by Erik Brooks on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    I'd be fine with dropping 32-bit Linux for 64-bit Linux.

    But there are still a few problems with 64-bit Domino, primiarly running Lotusscript. There was a crash SPR fixed in 8.5.1 there and reports that even 8.5.1FP2 is still having problems:

    { Link }

    ...and memory problems, at that. Emoticon undecided.gif

    64-bit is HUGE for Domino (especially web app servers) and it's obviously the future, but a bit of additional effort is needed to iron out the last problems. Once that's done it's obviously the way to go.
  9. posted by Nathan T. Freeman on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    I say IBM should get ahead of the curve here for once. Implement Domino as a 65-bit application on Linux, and let the OS vendors catch up. 65-bit is twice as good as 64!
  10. posted by Richard Schwartz on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    AFAIK, the current 64 bit versions are little more than a re-compile and the internal memory management routines still assume that the restrictions imposed by 32 bit addressing are still in place. As a result, I've heard that on memory-constrained servers the 64 bit code can actually performs worse than the 32 bit version -- and my own experience tends to confirm this. So I would only want to see IBM drop the 32 bit version if they actually invest the engineering and QA time in building a true 64 bit port that takes real advantage of the 64 bit virtual address space.
  11. posted by Stephan H. Wissel on Wednesday 07 April 2010 AD:
    @Richard: "memory-constrained servers" are definitely a bad idea for 64Bit. The whole idea of 64Bit is the availability of more memory. We see huge differences especially on XPages which enjoys a true-blue (pun intended) 64Bit JVM.
    Emoticon biggrin.gif stw
  12. posted by Bilal Jaffery on Thursday 08 April 2010 AD:
    haha @ Nathan.