Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 05 Apr 2004 15:35:23 -0600 | From | Eric Whiting <> | Subject | Re: -mmX 4G patches feedback |
| |
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/
| |