Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:56:09 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Samplonius <tom@samplonius.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: Kevin K <kkutzko@teksavvy.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM Message-ID: <4594886.5961203490569242.JavaMail.root@ly.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <20080220035752.GR99258@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- "Alfred Perlstein" <alfred@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a > more > > reliable environment other than PAE? > > Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system. > > One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable (6.3 and beyond) > is considered very stable, so if you can't make the jump to amd64 > system because you'd have to recompile too much, you might have luck > updating sources to 6-stable and trying that kernel, then installing > 6.3 userland. Is PAE really that stable? I thought it was fairly unpolished, mainly because PAE is seen as a weak kludge implemented by Intel because they all thought we would all be using Itanium's by now. Intel reversed their folly pretty quickly, adopted the x86-64 extensions as-is from AMD, and pushed them onto every piece of silicon they make. I also really don't know how anyone would properly use 16GB of RAM under PAE anyways? Each process is going to limited to just under 4GB. The kernel memory space can't be bigger than 4GB either, so forget about a huge disk cache. And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems just the same as i386. > good luck, > -Alfred Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4594886.5961203490569242.JavaMail.root>