Tom Samplonius wrote: > 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.
Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE. > 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. As I understand it, one possible benefit could be to use the memory for disk / file cache. AFAIK the pages are just pages, without distinction where they are mapped, and for example, if you run PostgreSQL, it couldn't use more than 4 GB for its own data (actually closer to 2 GB because of some sysvshm issues) but it will indirectly use the cache. > And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems > just the same as i386. I agree, FreeBSD on amd64 is very stable.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
