From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Apr 16 6: 9: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from thelab.hub.org (nat192.236.mpoweredpc.net [142.177.192.236]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAAE15041 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:09:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by thelab.hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA19259; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:03:03 -0300 (ADT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) X-Authentication-Warning: thelab.hub.org: scrappy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:03:03 -0300 (ADT) From: The Hermit Hacker To: Greg Lehey Cc: Joachim Isaksson , Luoqi Chen , Stephen McKay , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NT4 server 2.5 times faster than Linux In-Reply-To: <19990415193124.U23745@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG How much RAM can we support, max? On Thu, 15 Apr 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thursday, 15 April 1999 at 11:46:58 +0200, Joachim Isaksson wrote: > >>> 2) "The Linux kernel limited itself to use only 960 MB of RAM" > >> > >> The box had 4GB of RAM, but Linux got to use less than 1GB. Poor Linux. > >> This was such a fair test! :-( Do we recall a previous test where our > >> favourite OS used only a portion of the total RAM? > > > > Well, does Linux really limit itself to 960MB of RAM as they claim? > > If so, I'd say it's not an unfair test to not limit NT to the same low memory > > use. > > It looks as if they did. To quote > http://www.lwn.net/1999/features/MindCraft1.0.phtml, which I found to > be a well-reasoned summary, though I didn't check their reasoning: > > Non-issues > > A few complaints that have been sent to us probably do not > figure into the test results. We list them here in the hopes of > helping to slow their propagation and improve the quality of > information out there. > > Some complaints have been raised about the test being run on > a 4GB server, even though the Linux kernel, in its default > form, can only use 960M of that. Patches can be applied to > 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. > > Greg > -- > See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers > finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message