32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu ; On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote: >> >Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available. Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

  1. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:

    >>

    >Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.


    Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?

  2. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Mike Smith wrote:
    | On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    |
    |>>
    |>Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.
    |
    | Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?

    It's something you do in the Linux kernel while configuring for compile.
    Maybe some distribution has already done that for you. I just did it for
    myself (I always compile the kernels I run). Some other kernel settings
    as well as package selections to install can dictate whether the computer
    will be better suited as a workstation or as a server. One well tuned
    can be a fairly good compromise for both.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

  3. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Mike Smith wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    >
    >> Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

    >
    > Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?

    Yes, works on the 'desktop' version. Not greater than 4GB though.

  4. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Mike Smith wrote:
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    >
    >> Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

    >
    > Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?


    If you have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, it is one of the kernels that you
    get unless you take steps not to get it. I run the server version of RHEL; I
    am not positive you get it with the Workstation version.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 13:55:01 up 16 days, 23:15, 4 users, load average: 4.15, 4.14, 4.16

  5. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?
    >
    > Dave


    This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    able to run up to 64GB RAM.

  6. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Jean-David Beyer wrote:
    > Mike Smith wrote:
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    >>
    >>> Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

    >> Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?

    >
    > If you have Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, it is one of the kernels that you
    > get unless you take steps not to get it. I run the server version of RHEL; I
    > am not positive you get it with the Workstation version.


    It's available with the "client" subscription.
    That is, you don't need the "workstation" option.

  7. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    At Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:37:22 -0400 Mike Smith wrote:

    >
    > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    >
    > >>

    > >Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

    >
    > Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?


    Unlike MS-Windows, the Linux *kernel* does not distinguish between
    servers and workstations, so yes, you can install any kernel on any
    machine, whether it is a workstation or a server.

    >


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  8. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    |>
    |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    |>
    |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    |> physical RAM?
    |>
    |> Dave
    |
    | This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    | your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    | PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    | able to run up to 64GB RAM.

    Beyond that, things should be shifting to 64-bit. But can we have a 32-bit
    virtual address space on a 64-bit kernel?

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

  9. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    > | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    > |>
    > |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    > |>
    > |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > |> physical RAM?
    > |>
    > |> Dave
    > |
    > | This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    > | your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    > | PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    > | able to run up to 64GB RAM.
    >
    > Beyond that, things should be shifting to 64-bit. But can we have a 32-bit
    > virtual address space on a 64-bit kernel?
    >


    Everything is backwards compatible with 32 bit anyways, so that's not a
    problem.

  10. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Ian Pawson wrote:

    > Mike Smith wrote:
    >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:31:49 +0100, Ian Pawson wrote:
    >>
    >>> Install the PAE kernel and it should all be available.

    >>
    >> Can you do that on workstation or only in the server version?

    > Yes, works on the 'desktop' version. Not greater than 4GB though.


    Please explaing that? The whole idea of PAE is ... using more than 4GB
    memory. Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

    "In computing, Physical Address Extension (PAE) refers to a feature of x86
    and x86-64 processors that allows more than 4 gigabytes (GB) of physical
    memory to be used in 32-bit systems, given appropriate operating system
    support."

    de Kameel


  11. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    |> In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    |> | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    |> |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    |> |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    |> |>
    |> |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    |> |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    |> |>
    |> |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    |> |> physical RAM?
    |> |>
    |> |> Dave
    |> |
    |> | This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    |> | your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    |> | PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    |> | able to run up to 64GB RAM.
    |>
    |> Beyond that, things should be shifting to 64-bit. But can we have a 32-bit
    |> virtual address space on a 64-bit kernel?
    |>
    |
    | Everything is backwards compatible with 32 bit anyways, so that's not a
    | problem.

    But that's not an answer to my question. If I bring up a 64-bit kernel, will
    it DIRECTLY run /sbin/init and all other processes started from there from a
    32-bit root file system tree? IOW, will 32-bit ABI syscalls still work from
    within a 32-bit virtual address space?

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

  12. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    I demand that phil-news-nospam@ipal.net may or may not have written...

    [snip]
    > If I bring up a 64-bit kernel, will it DIRECTLY run /sbin/init and all
    > other processes started from there from a 32-bit root file system tree?
    > IOW, will 32-bit ABI syscalls still work from within a 32-bit virtual
    > address space?


    If it has the necessary support built in then yes.

    --
    | Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
    | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
    | + Buy local produce. Try to walk or cycle. TRANSPORT CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.

    There is much Obi-Wan did not tell you.

  13. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > These days swap space should be considered a safety valve, it's not
    > something that you want used. As soon as processes start to move to the
    > swap space the system performance goes to hell. If you actually try and
    > use something that has been swapped out you'll have to wait forever for it
    > to be swapped back in again. If you are using swap space at all then you
    > should buy more RAM.


    The swapfile is always in use, even when you think there's plenty of
    memory. These days the swapfile, which is really virtual memory is used
    as backing store for RAM. Not all parts of a program are in use all of
    the time, so the OS uses something called demand-paging to bring into
    RAM only the parts of a program actually in use right now. If other
    parts of the program are needed they are brought in from swapfile and
    then put back into it when they are no longer needed again.

    It's very rare that an entire program is swapped out to swap these days.
    More likely that various unused pieces are put there and brought back in
    as necessary.

    Yousuf Khan

  14. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    >
    > For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    >
    > Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > physical RAM?


    There's a couple of different nuances to this question. First issue is
    the virtual memory. 32-bit x86 processors can address more than 32-bit
    addresses, with a technique called PAE (Physical Address Extensions).
    Typically 32-bit PAE systems are limited to upto 64GB of memory,
    although the PAE paging structures allows for access of upto 1TB of
    memory. On a side note, 64-bit x86 systems also use the PAE paging
    structures, but they can address upto the full 1TB of memory.

    Now the other end of the nuance is how much physical memory a 32-bit
    system can see? If you have 4GB of RAM installed on a 32-bit system,
    then your system will only see upto 3.25GB of that 4GB. The remaining
    RAM is ignored because it is used for peripheral hardware such as video
    cards, ROM, and other stuff. I think this is a problem on 32-bit
    systems, in that they will always lop that extra 0.75GB of memory from
    system usage, even if you have 8 or 16GB of RAM installed (so you'll
    only see 7.25GB or 15.25GB). This won't be a problem on 64-bit systems,
    they can typically remap all of the system RAM to higher locations.

    Yousuf Khan

  15. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?


    > Now the other end of the nuance is how much physical memory a 32-bit
    > system can see? If you have 4GB of RAM installed on a 32-bit system,
    > then your system will only see upto 3.25GB of that 4GB. The remaining
    > RAM is ignored because it is used for peripheral hardware such as video
    > cards, ROM, and other stuff. I think this is a problem on 32-bit
    > systems, in that they will always lop that extra 0.75GB of memory from
    > system usage, even if you have 8 or 16GB of RAM installed (so you'll
    > only see 7.25GB or 15.25GB). This won't be a problem on 64-bit systems,
    > they can typically remap all of the system RAM to higher locations.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan


    32 bit PAE kernels don't lop off anything, if you have 4G of RAM all of
    it will be available to the system although only 3G will be available to
    any individual thread. If the kernel is compiled with regular 32 bit
    addressing instead or PAE then it will have to map the IO space into the
    top of it's 4G address space which will limit the RAM to less than 4G.
    There can also be a BIOS issue with early AMD64 systems. In those BIOSes
    you had to explicitly enable something called Memory Hole Remapping which
    would move the IOMMU above the RAM space, if you didn't do that then even
    a 64 bit kernel couldn't see all of the RAM. I don't know if there are
    any current BIOSes that still make Memory Hole Remapping an option, I
    think they just do what needs to be done so that all of the RAM is
    accessible.

    32 bit Linux distros all have PAE kernels available so there is no reason
    that any Linux user would be able to use all of the RAM in their system.
    Windows users don't have that luxury. 32 bit XP and 32 bit Vista are
    compiled without PAE so users of those OSes are limited to less than 4G
    of RAM. Obviously 64 bit XP and Vista can access all of their RAM.

  16. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    At 13 Jul 2008 13:55:54 GMT phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:

    >
    > In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    > | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    > |> In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    > |> | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    > |> |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    > |> |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    > |> |>
    > |> |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    > |> |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    > |> |>
    > |> |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    > |> |> physical RAM?
    > |> |>
    > |> |> Dave
    > |> |
    > |> | This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    > |> | your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    > |> | PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    > |> | able to run up to 64GB RAM.
    > |>
    > |> Beyond that, things should be shifting to 64-bit. But can we have a 32-bit
    > |> virtual address space on a 64-bit kernel?
    > |>
    > |
    > | Everything is backwards compatible with 32 bit anyways, so that's not a
    > | problem.
    >
    > But that's not an answer to my question. If I bring up a 64-bit kernel, will
    > it DIRECTLY run /sbin/init and all other processes started from there from a
    > 32-bit root file system tree? IOW, will 32-bit ABI syscalls still work from
    > within a 32-bit virtual address space?


    The 32-bit PAE kernels are 32-bit kernels, with kernel mode mapping
    magic to allow a 36-bit virtual address space. *User Mode* processes won't
    even be aware that more then 4gig of address space even exists. This is
    NOT a true 64-bit kernel.

    If you have a true 64-bit processor and not just a i686 with PAE, but a
    x86_64 or i64 processor, AND you want a full 64-bit system, then you
    need to install a full 64-bit *distribution*, which will include a
    64-bit kernel, plus a full set of 64-bit base system utilities. Most
    (all?) such distros also include the 32-bit shared libraries, which
    means that 32-bit x86 (i32) programs will also be runable -- the kernel
    / program loader will set them up with a 32-bit address space and the
    resulting processes behave just like they are running on a generic
    32-bit i686.

    Note: an i686 w/ PAE only allows user mode processes to access a 32-bit
    address space. The kernel can get access to a 36-bit address space.

    >


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  17. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    * Joe peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I'd say it depends on your usage/need of the computer. I have
    > switched back to running 32 bit on my desktop, as the 64 bit
    > workarounds for java and flash are not up to par, imo. For any of my
    > workhorse machines, though, including the servers, the 64 bit kernel
    > is automatic.


    It's getting palpably better day by day!


  18. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Heller wrote:

    | At 13 Jul 2008 13:55:54 GMT phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    |
    |>
    |> In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    |> | phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
    |> |> In comp.os.linux.misc Ben wrote:
    |> |> | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    |> |> |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    |> |> |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    |> |> |>
    |> |> |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    |> |> |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    |> |> |>
    |> |> |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    |> |> |> physical RAM?
    |> |> |>
    |> |> |> Dave
    |> |> |
    |> |> | This problem was solved with Physical Address Extension. As long as both
    |> |> | your CPU (nearly all modern 32-bit CPUs do now) and your kernel supports
    |> |> | PAE, and the mainline Linux kernel does now, then you should be easily
    |> |> | able to run up to 64GB RAM.
    |> |>
    |> |> Beyond that, things should be shifting to 64-bit. But can we have a 32-bit
    |> |> virtual address space on a 64-bit kernel?
    |> |>
    |> |
    |> | Everything is backwards compatible with 32 bit anyways, so that's not a
    |> | problem.
    |>
    |> But that's not an answer to my question. If I bring up a 64-bit kernel, will
    |> it DIRECTLY run /sbin/init and all other processes started from there from a
    |> 32-bit root file system tree? IOW, will 32-bit ABI syscalls still work from
    |> within a 32-bit virtual address space?
    |
    | The 32-bit PAE kernels are 32-bit kernels, with kernel mode mapping
    | magic to allow a 36-bit virtual address space. *User Mode* processes won't
    | even be aware that more then 4gig of address space even exists. This is
    | NOT a true 64-bit kernel.
    |
    | If you have a true 64-bit processor and not just a i686 with PAE, but a
    | x86_64 or i64 processor, AND you want a full 64-bit system, then you
    | need to install a full 64-bit *distribution*, which will include a
    | 64-bit kernel, plus a full set of 64-bit base system utilities. Most
    | (all?) such distros also include the 32-bit shared libraries, which
    | means that 32-bit x86 (i32) programs will also be runable -- the kernel
    | / program loader will set them up with a 32-bit address space and the
    | resulting processes behave just like they are running on a generic
    | 32-bit i686.

    However, these 32-bit compatibility libraries in the 64-bit distribution could
    be converting the 32-bit library-calling-ABI into the 64-bit syscall-ABI and
    interacting with the kernel on a 64-bit level.

    My question was NOT "can I run a 32-bit dynamically linked application
    executable run on a 64-bit Linux distribution (that has 32-bit compatibility
    libraries)?".

    My question IS "can a complete 32-bit root tree, with 32-bit libraries that
    work on a 32-bit kernel, and many 32-bit statically linked executables, work
    on a 64-bit kernel?".

    The question might need to be extended in the case of virtualization such as
    Xen. But until someone grasps the conceptual difference between running a
    32-bit executable with 32-bit libraries under a 32-bit kernel ... and ...
    running a 32-bit executable with 32-bit to 64-bit compatibility libraries
    under a 64-bit kernel, I shall try to keep the question simple in the hopes
    of actually getting an answer from someone who actually knows whether or not
    this concept matters for 32-bit kernels vs. 64-bit kernels on at least the
    x86-64 hardware architecture.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

  19. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    * phil-news-nospam@ipal.net peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > My question IS "can a complete 32-bit root tree, with 32-bit libraries that
    > work on a 32-bit kernel, and many 32-bit statically linked executables, work
    > on a 64-bit kernel?".
    >
    > The question might need to be extended in the case of virtualization such as
    > Xen. But until someone grasps the conceptual difference between running a
    > 32-bit executable with 32-bit libraries under a 32-bit kernel ... and ...
    > running a 32-bit executable with 32-bit to 64-bit compatibility libraries
    > under a 64-bit kernel, I shall try to keep the question simple in the hopes
    > of actually getting an answer from someone who actually knows whether or not
    > this concept matters for 32-bit kernels vs. 64-bit kernels on at least the
    > x86-64 hardware architecture.


    You can have it both ways:

    http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/356

    Although some of the claims about you cannot do with a 64-bit system are
    now quite out-of-date.

    --
    "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began
    to suspect "Hungry."
    -- a Larson cartoon

  20. Re: 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    In comp.os.linux.misc Yousuf Khan wrote:
    | curiousdave@AOL.com wrote:
    |> Is that correct that the sum total of all virtual memory allocations
    |> on a 32 bit OS cannot exceed 4 GB?
    |>
    |> For example, if I have 4 GB of RAM, can I run 20 programs that take 500
    |> MB each? (with most memory swapped out, and big swap file, of course).
    |>
    |> Also, is it true that 32 bit install cannot use more than 4 GB of
    |> physical RAM?
    |
    | There's a couple of different nuances to this question. First issue is
    | the virtual memory. 32-bit x86 processors can address more than 32-bit
    | addresses, with a technique called PAE (Physical Address Extensions).
    | Typically 32-bit PAE systems are limited to upto 64GB of memory,
    | although the PAE paging structures allows for access of upto 1TB of
    | memory. On a side note, 64-bit x86 systems also use the PAE paging
    | structures, but they can address upto the full 1TB of memory.
    |
    | Now the other end of the nuance is how much physical memory a 32-bit
    | system can see? If you have 4GB of RAM installed on a 32-bit system,
    | then your system will only see upto 3.25GB of that 4GB. The remaining
    | RAM is ignored because it is used for peripheral hardware such as video
    | cards, ROM, and other stuff. I think this is a problem on 32-bit
    | systems, in that they will always lop that extra 0.75GB of memory from
    | system usage, even if you have 8 or 16GB of RAM installed (so you'll
    | only see 7.25GB or 15.25GB). This won't be a problem on 64-bit systems,
    | they can typically remap all of the system RAM to higher locations.

    There's nothing the PAE design that would prevent a 32-bit PAE system from
    remapping the lost 0.75GB of RAM into a location above the 4GB address as
    long as the system is not fully populated to the PAE limit of 64GB. However,
    the real question is whether or not real implementations have been made to
    do just that.

    I have a Tyan S2927A2NRF board (2 sockets of dual-core AMD Opeteron CPUs)
    with 8GB of RAM installed. Kernel messages at boot are not all that clear,
    given a variety of different numbers. But at least one number in one place,
    and the sum of 2 numbers in another place which add up to exactly the same
    thing, give an effective memory of 8.625 GB based on powers of 1024. Other
    numbers might be memory available beyond what is used initially by the kernel.

    [ 0.000000] 7936MB HIGHMEM available.
    [ 0.000000] 896MB LOWMEM available.

    [ 53.151597] Memory: 8310416k/9043968k available (3399k kernel code, 76920k reserved, 1281k data, 228k init, 7470912k highmem)
    [ 53.151684] virtual kernel memory layout:
    [ 53.151685] fixmap : 0xfff4d000 - 0xfffff000 ( 712 kB)
    [ 53.151686] pkmap : 0xffc00000 - 0xffe00000 (2048 kB)
    [ 53.151687] vmalloc : 0xf8800000 - 0xffbfe000 ( 115 MB)
    [ 53.151687] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0xf8000000 ( 896 MB)
    [ 53.151688] .init : 0xc059b000 - 0xc05d4000 ( 228 kB)
    [ 53.151689] .data : 0xc0451cce - 0xc0592374 (1281 kB)
    [ 53.151690] .text : 0xc0100000 - 0xc0451cce (3399 kB)

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast