Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:08:52 +0000
From:      Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux
Message-ID:  <19990415120852.A11702@rucus.ru.ac.za>
In-Reply-To: <19990415193124.U23745@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Thu, Apr 15, 1999 at 07:31:24PM %2B0930
References:  <3714EFA7.239DEBF5@chen.ml.org> <199904150921.TAA28780@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> <004201be8724$e7b89a40$8cbc2dc1@ibfs.com> <19990415193124.U23745@lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu 1999-04-15 (19:31), Greg Lehey wrote:
>          make 2GB available fairly easily. But, in any case, they
>          claim that NT was limited (with the maxmem parameter) to 1G
>          of memory, so this aspect of the test was fair. It would have
>          been more straightforward of them, however, to have simply
>          remove the other 3G from the system.

Is this the maxmem parameter that affects the maximum amount of Virtual
Memory (address space) assigned to user processes by the VMM?  Usually
it's 2GB for applications maximum with the remainder assigned to the
kernel-mode portions of NT.

(I'm just wondering since in NT4SP3 and NT Server, Enterprise Edition 4, an
administrator can move that to a 3/1gig ratio in the favour of user-mode.)

Of course, this is probably a non-issue, but I'm just interested, since it
would have otherwise seemed logical to physically remove the memory.

Neil
-- 
Neil Blakey-Milner
nbm@rucus.ru.ac.za


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990415120852.A11702>