From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 7 15:21:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A255E1065671 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:21:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F125E8FC14; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:21:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <489B1311.9020100@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:21:53 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Khitrov References: <26ddd1750808070647yf0a9205u514c6ba87fbf97a5@mail.gmail.com> <26ddd1750808070803v762e536dofd72d8b3f17c5baa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <26ddd1750808070803v762e536dofd72d8b3f17c5baa@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sean Cavanaugh , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64-bit Linux Binary Compatibility (for Matlab) 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: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:21:57 -0000 Maxim Khitrov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Sean Cavanaugh > wrote: >> >>> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:47:45 -0400 >>> From: mkhitrov@gmail.com >>> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >>> Subject: 64-bit Linux Binary Compatibility (for Matlab) >>> Apparently Matlab tries to allocate a continuous chunk of memory, and >>> we needed to upgrade to 64-bit hardware to give it access to more than >>> 1GB of memory, which is about the most that it was able to get before. >>> It's a lousy explanation, but I wasn't employed at this place when >>> this diagnosis was made. >>> >> running 32-bit gives you access to 4GB of RAM, not 1. there is some address >> space that is used up by hardware such as video cards that will reduce that >> number reported by the OS. >> > > I know that, the key word there is continuous space. It still doesn't make any sense; processes on i386 have up to 3GB (by default) of address space to do with what they wish. Perhaps someone forgot to increase the maxdsiz resource limit? Kris