FOLLOWUP -- 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on FOLLOWUP -- 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit? - Ubuntu ; Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a server with 8 GB of RAM. The answer is: It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has more than ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: FOLLOWUP -- 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

  1. FOLLOWUP -- 32 bit OS, 4 GB limit?

    Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    server with 8 GB of RAM.

    The answer is:

    It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.

    So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    system memory.

    i

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

    Em Quarta, 16 de Julho de 2008 19:09, Ignoramus30183 escreveu:

    > Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    > server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >
    > The answer is:
    >
    > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    > RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    > of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >
    > So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    > system memory.
    >
    > i


    Linux kernel (with the correct configuration) can suport up to 64GB of
    RAM...

    linux is designed to run huge servers and super-computers, clusters and so
    on... it can also run on personal computers, and most distros configure
    there kernel to suport up to 4GB of ram, if you want more, you better
    configure your own kernel.



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

    ArameFarpado :
    > Em Quarta, 16 de Julho de 2008 19:09, Ignoramus30183 escreveu:
    >
    > > Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    > > server with 8 GB of RAM.
    > >
    > > The answer is:
    > >
    > > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    > > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    > > RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    > > of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    > >
    > > So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    > > system memory.

    >
    > Linux kernel (with the correct configuration) can suport up to 64GB of
    > RAM...
    >
    > linux is designed to run huge servers and super-computers, clusters and so
    > on... it can also run on personal computers, and most distros configure
    > [their] kernel to suport up to 4GB of ram. If you want more, you better
    > configure your own kernel.


    Average users like me have for years been able to accept distro's
    image kernels, as opposed to rolling our own. There are, however, a
    few special niche users (ie. AutoCAD) who don't fit the Golden Rule of
    building distros (do no harm). Whacking great amounts of installed
    memory is one. Another, one of my friends, is one; musicians. They
    need 1000 Hz timer resolution for Rosegarden. Debian gives them 250
    Hz, to do no harm to those machines which can't handle 1000 Hz.

    I'm about to wipe Debian off it and install Zenwalk (or maybe Sidux
    with a recompiled bleeding edge kernel). Yes I recompiled, and
    installed kernel .deb, and made sure it was done right, and still no
    happy rosegarden, drat. Still working on it. Research.


    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    (*) http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Linux Counter #80292
    - - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.

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

    On 2008-07-17, s. keeling wrote:
    > ArameFarpado :
    >> Em Quarta, 16 de Julho de 2008 19:09, Ignoramus30183 escreveu:
    >>
    >> > Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    >> > server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >> >
    >> > The answer is:
    >> >
    >> > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >> > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >> > RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >> > of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >> >
    >> > So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >> > system memory.

    >>
    >> Linux kernel (with the correct configuration) can suport up to 64GB of
    >> RAM...
    >>
    >> linux is designed to run huge servers and super-computers, clusters and so
    >> on... it can also run on personal computers, and most distros configure
    >> [their] kernel to suport up to 4GB of ram. If you want more, you better
    >> configure your own kernel.

    >
    > Average users like me have for years been able to accept distro's
    > image kernels, as opposed to rolling our own. There are, however, a
    > few special niche users (ie. AutoCAD) who don't fit the Golden Rule of
    > building distros (do no harm). Whacking great amounts of installed
    > memory is one. Another, one of my friends, is one; musicians. They
    > need 1000 Hz timer resolution for Rosegarden. Debian gives them 250
    > Hz, to do no harm to those machines which can't handle 1000 Hz.
    >
    > I'm about to wipe Debian off it and install Zenwalk (or maybe Sidux
    > with a recompiled bleeding edge kernel). Yes I recompiled, and
    > installed kernel .deb, and made sure it was done right, and still no
    > happy rosegarden, drat. Still working on it. Research.
    >
    >


    I did not build any special kernel. I used the standard Ubuntu Gutsy
    kernel. Everything worked great.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

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

    Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    > Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    > server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >
    > The answer is:
    >
    > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    > RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    > of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >
    > So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    > system memory.
    >
    > i


    I agree; It won't be a couple of years (3-4 at least) until most
    computers will need to allow each process to access more than 4MB RAM,
    anyway, and probably more than that until most desktop computers (and
    even most servers) will need more than 64GB total RAM.

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

    On 2008-07-17, Ben wrote:
    > Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >> Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    >> server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >>
    >> The answer is:
    >>
    >> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >> RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>
    >> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >> system memory.
    >>
    >> i

    >
    > I agree; It won't be a couple of years (3-4 at least) until most
    > computers will need to allow each process to access more than 4MB RAM,
    > anyway, and probably more than that until most desktop computers (and
    > even most servers) will need more than 64GB total RAM.


    I regret installing 64 bit stuff on many of my machines and am
    considering reverting to 32 bit.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

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

    Ignoramus20788 wrote:
    > On 2008-07-17, Ben wrote:
    >> Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >>> Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    >>> server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >>>
    >>> The answer is:
    >>>
    >>> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >>> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >>> RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >>> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>>
    >>> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >>> system memory.
    >>>
    >>> i

    >> I agree; It won't be a couple of years (3-4 at least) until most
    >> computers will need to allow each process to access more than 4MB RAM,
    >> anyway, and probably more than that until most desktop computers (and
    >> even most servers) will need more than 64GB total RAM.

    >
    > I regret installing 64 bit stuff on many of my machines and am
    > considering reverting to 32 bit.
    >

    I installed 32 bit after a few days of agonising, and it all works
    perfectly.

    I simply picked the cheapest motherboard, half a gig of ram and a bloody
    big 400GB SATA disk and a DVD drive. Since all it was to do was be a
    database and file server ;-)

    The SATA disk makes all the difference, its very fast compared to my old
    1 gigahertz 32 bit stuff with IDE drives.

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

    Ignoramus30183,

    > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    > RAM.


    But the server/hardware has to be a 64 bit system then? Are there any
    resources on this topic you could point me to?

    > However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    > of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.


    True -- I think of several VMs running at the same time on the same
    machine.

    --
    /\/\arkus.

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

    On 2008-07-17, Markus Springweiler wrote:
    > Ignoramus30183,
    >
    >> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >> RAM.

    >
    > But the server/hardware has to be a 64 bit system then? Are there any
    > resources on this topic you could point me to?


    The question is very good, but I do not have the answer. All that
    hardware is 64 bit capable.

    >> However, obviously, each process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.

    >
    > True -- I think of several VMs running at the same time on the same
    > machine.


    I tend to think that using VMs should typically be unnecessary, but my
    worldview may be limited.

    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

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

    On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:09:35 -0500, Ignoramus30183 wrote:

    > It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    > more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this RAM.
    > However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB of
    > RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >
    > So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    > system memory.


    What does free -m report because my 4 Gig system says I have 3.4 Gigs.

    --
    // This is my opinion.

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

    On 2008-07-17, jebblue wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:09:35 -0500, Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >
    >> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this RAM.
    >> However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB of
    >> RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>
    >> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >> system memory.

    >
    > What does free -m report because my 4 Gig system says I have 3.4 Gigs.
    >


    Running 8 gig system:

    ==] free -m
    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 8115 2644 5471 0 211 1435
    -/+ buffers/cache: 997 7118
    Swap: 5718 0 5718


    --
    Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
    to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
    from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
    more readers you will need to find a different means of
    posting on Usenet.
    http://improve-usenet.org/

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

    Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    > On 2008-07-17, s. keeling wrote:
    >> ArameFarpado :
    >>> Em Quarta, 16 de Julho de 2008 19:09, Ignoramus30183 escreveu:
    >>>
    >>>> Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    >>>> server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> The answer is:
    >>>>
    >>>> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >>>> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >>>> RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >>>> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >>>> system memory.
    >>> Linux kernel (with the correct configuration) can suport up to 64GB of
    >>> RAM...
    >>>
    >>> linux is designed to run huge servers and super-computers, clusters and so
    >>> on... it can also run on personal computers, and most distros configure
    >>> [their] kernel to suport up to 4GB of ram. If you want more, you better
    >>> configure your own kernel.

    >> Average users like me have for years been able to accept distro's
    >> image kernels, as opposed to rolling our own. There are, however, a
    >> few special niche users (ie. AutoCAD) who don't fit the Golden Rule of
    >> building distros (do no harm). Whacking great amounts of installed
    >> memory is one. Another, one of my friends, is one; musicians. They
    >> need 1000 Hz timer resolution for Rosegarden. Debian gives them 250
    >> Hz, to do no harm to those machines which can't handle 1000 Hz.
    >>
    >> I'm about to wipe Debian off it and install Zenwalk (or maybe Sidux
    >> with a recompiled bleeding edge kernel). Yes I recompiled, and
    >> installed kernel .deb, and made sure it was done right, and still no
    >> happy rosegarden, drat. Still working on it. Research.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I did not build any special kernel. I used the standard Ubuntu Gutsy
    > kernel. Everything worked great.
    >


    PAE and everything else related to this are included in the mainline
    kernel now anyway.

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

    jebblue wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:09:35 -0500, Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >
    >> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this RAM.
    >> However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB of
    >> RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>
    >> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >> system memory.

    >
    > What does free -m report because my 4 Gig system says I have 3.4 Gigs.
    >

    On my 8 GB system, I get:

    $ free -m
    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 7993 7489 504 0 235 6188
    -/+ buffers/cache: 1065 6927
    Swap: 4000 0 3999


    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 17:35:01 up 22 days, 2:55, 6 users, load average: 4.08, 4.14, 4.26

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

    On 2008-07-17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
    > Ignoramus20788 wrote:
    >> On 2008-07-17, Ben wrote:
    >>> Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >>>> Here's the answer. I actually tried what I asked about. Set up a
    >>>> server with 8 GB of RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> The answer is:
    >>>>
    >>>> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >>>> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >>>> RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >>>> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>>>
    >>>> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >>>> system memory.
    >>>>
    >>>> i
    >>> I agree; It won't be a couple of years (3-4 at least) until most
    >>> computers will need to allow each process to access more than 4MB RAM,
    >>> anyway, and probably more than that until most desktop computers (and
    >>> even most servers) will need more than 64GB total RAM.

    >>
    >> I regret installing 64 bit stuff on many of my machines and am
    >> considering reverting to 32 bit.
    >>

    > I installed 32 bit after a few days of agonising, and it all works
    > perfectly.
    >
    > I simply picked the cheapest motherboard, half a gig of ram and a bloody
    > big 400GB SATA disk and a DVD drive. Since all it was to do was be a
    > database and file server ;-)


    "Bloody Big"? That would be the second or third smallest drive in my
    network... ;-)

    >
    > The SATA disk makes all the difference, its very fast compared to my old
    > 1 gigahertz 32 bit stuff with IDE drives.


    I haven't found SATA to be any faster in overall use. It is very
    quick with sequential writes from a single process, but when it comes
    to heavy I/O, ATA 133 seems a bit snappier. Of course, I'll just
    stick with SCSI on those systems that have big I/O needs...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

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

    Joe wrote:
    >
    > I use VM's on my main workstation to play around with different OS'
    > and applications so as to not muck up my good machine. I am in the
    > process of installing a Vista Ultimate VM right now on this
    > workstation to play around with it a little without wasting perfectly
    > good hardware on a ****e OS... ;-)
    >
    >


    You're still wasting precious hard disk space with it and hence
    hardware. ;-)

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

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:41:47 -0500, Ignoramus20788 wrote:

    > On 2008-07-17, jebblue wrote:
    >> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:09:35 -0500, Ignoramus30183 wrote:
    >>
    >>> It works great to have a 32 bit install of Linux on a server that has
    >>> more than 4 GB of RAM. The server would be able to use all of this
    >>> RAM. However, obviously,e ach process would have to use less than 4 GB
    >>> of RAM, which is perfectly fine with us.
    >>>
    >>> So, the bottom line is, 32 bit Linux works great with more than 4GB of
    >>> system memory.

    >>
    >> What does free -m report because my 4 Gig system says I have 3.4 Gigs.
    >>
    >>

    > Running 8 gig system:
    >
    > ==] free -m
    > total used free shared buffers
    > cached
    > Mem: 8115 2644 5471 0 211
    > 1435 -/+ buffers/cache: 997 7118 Swap: 5718
    > 0 5718


    Thanks Igno and Jean-David, here's my report:

    total used free shared buffers cached
    Mem: 3528 2949 578 0 125 2363
    -/+ buffers/cache: 461 3067
    Swap: 10401 0 10401

    The System Monitor | System page shows 3.4 Gib.

    And cat /proc/meminfo first line:

    MemTotal: 3613036 kB

    I run the RT kernel, maybe it is not enabled in that one.

    --
    // This is my opinion.

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

    On 2008-07-18, Ben wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >>
    >> I use VM's on my main workstation to play around with different OS'
    >> and applications so as to not muck up my good machine. I am in the
    >> process of installing a Vista Ultimate VM right now on this
    >> workstation to play around with it a little without wasting perfectly
    >> good hardware on a ****e OS... ;-)
    >>
    >>

    >
    > You're still wasting precious hard disk space with it and hence
    > hardware. ;-)


    Nahhh... Hard disk space is cheap... I can spare 30 or 40 gigs for
    playing around with a toy OS when I have nothing of importance to do
    on the workhorse... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

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

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:38:55 -0500, Joe wrote:

    > Sure you can, but having it all on one server/install gives a greater
    > opportunity for failure, and a loss of all services at once when it
    > happens.


    True, so make the servers redundant, or grid, or cloud. The nice thing
    about running VMware (not sure about others) is that the VM doesn't care
    much where it runs, it's just disk files. Move it around as you need.

    --
    // This is my opinion.

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

    On 2008-07-18, jebblue wrote:
    > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:38:55 -0500, Joe wrote:
    >
    >> Sure you can, but having it all on one server/install gives a greater
    >> opportunity for failure, and a loss of all services at once when it
    >> happens.

    >
    > True, so make the servers redundant, or grid, or cloud. The nice thing
    > about running VMware (not sure about others) is that the VM doesn't care
    > much where it runs, it's just disk files. Move it around as you need.
    >


    That's the opposite of the previous point. And yes, it is also a
    great advantage to VMWare, but just not what was being discussed...
    ;-)

    At Home I only have ONE ESX server. At work, We have about 80, each
    with about 20 guests, with vmotion and all the fun fixins... ;-) A
    host goes down, the servers automagically move to new hosts. About a
    minute and a half of downtime, maximum, for the non-clustered servers.
    Much less for the clustered ones... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

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

    On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:29:48 -0500, Joe wrote:

    > At Home I only have ONE ESX server. At work, We have about 80, each
    > with about 20 guests, with vmotion and all the fun fixins... ;-) A
    > host goes down, the servers automagically move to new hosts. About a
    > minute and a half of downtime, maximum, for the non-clustered servers.
    > Much less for the clustered ones... ;-)


    Sorry and ... nice!

    --
    // This is my opinion.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast