From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 12 01:06:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E4A16A403 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:06:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net (sccrmhc15.comcast.net [63.240.77.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237E013C428 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:06:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from gimpy (c-24-118-186-172.hsd1.mn.comcast.net[24.118.186.172]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc15) with ESMTP id <2007011201063001500s6qcre>; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:06:30 +0000 From: Josh Paetzel To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 19:06:26 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4 References: <20070111084454.0ba4c327.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701111906.26196.josh@tcbug.org> Cc: Jeff MacDonald Subject: Re: Dell PE 1950 - Only seeing 3.2 gigs of ram X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:06:31 -0000 On Thursday 11 January 2007 07:55, Jeff MacDonald wrote: > > > Well I hate when people say this, but I'm going to say it.. :) > > > > > > When I did a default install of ubuntu, it saw all 4 gigs > > > without a hitch. So does that mean it already includes PAE, or > > > something else ? > > > > One of those two. You sure you didn't install a 64-bit version > > of Ubuntu? > > Fairly sure :) > > > > Aside, I will read up on PAE. I'll read up about 64 bit as > > > well, I've been hesitant to make the jump only cause any word > > > of mouth i've heard said that it's not ready for production. > > > Maybe that's off base, it's only what "i've heard" > > > > We're deploying a lot of 64 bit stuff around here. Our > > experience has been that the OS is as solid on amd64 as it is on > > i386. Server applications are the same. There are, however, a > > lot of desktop applications that are still flaky on 64-bit -- > > mostly non-mainstream ones. We got in a crunch and had to > > reinstall a workstation back to i386 because of it, or I would > > have filed some bug reports. > > Yeah, that's likly true what you say about server vs desktop. I'm > going to slap a 64 bit copy on now and see how it does. > > Jeff. For what it's worth I've been running 6.1-R AMD64 on a PE 1950 very successfully as a web/mysql/mail/dns server. If you have the broadcom or intel NICs you're going to want to use the drivers from 6-STABLE or 6.2-RC2. Other than that it's been relatively painless. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel