* Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080219 23:00] wrote: > > ----- "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
The 6-stable (6.3 and beyond) has been in use at Yahoo and other sites for quite some time. > 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. Actually this is incorrect, the kernel can use physical memory outside of its address space as cache, so you can get more than 4GB of cache. > And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems > just the same as i386. It's fine, people are just suggesting that the person upgrade to -stable (not stay at 6.2) and are concerned that reinstalling the machine as amd64 might be too much of a move. -Alfred _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
