From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 24 21:14:19 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 5DDF916A402 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:14:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62FF13C54A for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:14:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HgSKu-0004oC-Id for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:14:08 +0200 Received: from 89-172-244-19.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([89.172.244.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:14:08 +0200 Received: from ivoras by 89-172-244-19.adsl.net.t-com.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:14:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:13:59 +0200 Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <01d301c78699$d6a36820$0300020a@mickey> <20070424140528.95287ff4.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <021201c7869f$ee90fd70$0300020a@mickey> <3ee9ca710704241144n4ab349c6m901586e427b1ae0d@mail.gmail.com> <021c01c786a0$fe7e5510$0300020a@mickey> <20070424145433.734761db.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig467D812BFC4995C8D9DD98BF" X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89-172-244-19.adsl.net.t-com.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) In-Reply-To: <20070424145433.734761db.wmoran@potentialtech.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.3.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: Memory >3.5GB not used? 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:14:19 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig467D812BFC4995C8D9DD98BF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill Moran wrote: > In response to "Don O'Neil" : >=20 >> I never had this problem before when I built the kernel the first time= =2E >> Could my module source be corrupt? If so, how do I re-install just the= >> kernel sources for 6.1? >=20 > Not all modules work with PAE. Read the example PAE kernel file for > information. >=20 > PAE is an awful hack, BTW. I've heard a number of people complain that= > performance sucks under PAE. It greatly depends on the workload. For example, these are my results with unixbench: PAE: INDEX VALUES TEST BASELINE RESULT INDE= X Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 6404191.9 548.= 8 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1444.6 262.= 7 Execl Throughput 43.0 2374.5 552.= 2 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 47618.0 120.= 2 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 41809.0 252.= 6 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 58002.0 100.= 0 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 1018477.4 818.= 7 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 32811.6 82.= 0 Process Creation 126.0 4491.9 356.= 5 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 638.0 1063.= 3 System Call Overhead 15000.0 798137.5 532.= 1 =3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D FINAL SCORE 317.= 2 NO PAE: INDEX VALUES TEST BASELINE RESULT INDE= X Dhrystone 2 using register variables 116700.0 6673515.4 571.= 9 Double-Precision Whetstone 55.0 1475.1 268.= 2 Execl Throughput 43.0 2335.9 543.= 2 File Copy 1024 bufsize 2000 maxblocks 3960.0 43796.0 110.= 6 File Copy 256 bufsize 500 maxblocks 1655.0 39474.0 238.= 5 File Copy 4096 bufsize 8000 maxblocks 5800.0 57819.0 99.= 7 Pipe Throughput 12440.0 998089.5 802.= 3 Pipe-based Context Switching 4000.0 25928.4 64.= 8 Process Creation 126.0 5043.9 400.= 3 Shell Scripts (8 concurrent) 6.0 697.0 1161.= 7 System Call Overhead 15000.0 792628.3 528.= 4 =3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D FINAL SCORE 312.= 7 The final score is better in PAE case because IO performance measured better, but in this case I know this particular benchmark can be ignored, but the rest of the numbers should be fine. In short, PAE is worse, but not horribly so. --------------enig467D812BFC4995C8D9DD98BF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGLnMXldnAQVacBcgRAnncAJ9RdAu1oMraGnSnD5r8BqnxpJfSjgCgtZKb A09r5RGKAYWtPdKMqsmP1nE= =tWQ9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig467D812BFC4995C8D9DD98BF--