Message-ID: <4071D11B.1FEFD20A@amis.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:35:23 -0600
From: Eric Whiting <ewhiting@amis.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mmX 4G patches feedback
References: <40718B2A.967D9467@amis.com> <20040405174616.GH2234@dualathlon.random>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1087
Lines: 24

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 10:36:58AM -0600, Eric Whiting wrote:
> > The 4G/4G patch is still useful for me -- although 64bit linux (x86_64) is the
> > best 'real' long-term solution to large memory jobs.
> 
> what's your primary limitation? physical memory or virtual address
> space? if it's physical memory go with 2.6-aa and it'll work fine up to
> 32G boxes included at full cpu performance.

4G of virtual address is what we need. Virtual address space is why the -mmX
4G/4G patches are useful. In this application it is single processes (usually
running one at a time) that need more than 3G of RAM. 
 
> if it's virtual address space and you've not much more than 4G of ram
> 3.5:1.5 usually works fine, and againt you'll run at full cpu
> performance.

3.5:1.5 appears to be a 2.4.x kernel patch only right?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/