John Doe wrote on Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:25:13 -0700 (PDT):
And that running in PAE would slow down some processes.
The overhead is minimal, if you want those extra 700 MB, do it.
Kai
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
From: Hakan Koseoglu ha...@koseoglu.org
In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
chipset
It still is, even with with 64 bit. If your motherboard supports
remapping this memory with 64 bit you can use the whole 4GB. Otherwise
you're limited to 3.2:
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
chipset
stuff...
And that running in PAE would
On Thursday 22 July 2010, John Doe wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
PAE.
Keep in mind that PAE is Pentium Pro era technology.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
a better idea than PAE.
Keep in mind that PAE is Pentium Pro era technology.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
programs you run do this?
What is a program
What is a program supposed to do to get at that extra RAM then ?
Just curious ;-)
AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:58 +, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
What is a program supposed to do to get at that extra RAM then ?
Just curious ;-)
AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
---
A PAE enabled Kernel:
NO. It is dependent on the mmap() call in the program as in how the
JD,
On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
You should use 64 bit if possible but if you're seeing 3.2GB, it's more
likely that
On 22/07/10 18:07, Warren Young wrote:
Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
programs you run do this?
With PAE you can utilize all of the extra RAM but each individual
program will be limited to 3GB user space, you can fit a more of them
into 16GB, still using 32
management is a kernel task after
all, isnt it ? The kernel has to be compiled for PAE, of course.
What I want to say: I do not know about programming techniqes to
exploit PAE.
--
Regards, Markus
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Markus Falb wrote:
To: centos@centos.org
From: Markus Falb markus.f...@fasel.at
Subject: Re: [CentOS] To PAE or not to PAE...
On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 19:43 +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
On 22/07/10 18:07, Warren Young wrote:
Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can the
programs you run do this?
With PAE you can utilize all of the extra RAM but each individual
program will be limited to 3GB user
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
You should use 64 bit if possible but if you're seeing 3.2GB, it's more
likely that your motherboard is not capable (I have
On 7/22/2010 1:50 PM, Markus Falb wrote:
On 22/07/2010 19:58, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
What is a program supposed to do to get at that extra RAM then ?
Just curious ;-)
AFAIK, it must be specifically compiled for it...
I always thought PAE is quite transparent thing for user programs. PAE
On 22/07/2010 11:25, John Doe wrote:
Hi,
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
In the past, I heard that these 700MB were normally reserved for bios or
chipset
stuff...
I installed a 32 bit centos and with the non-pae kernel
On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
JD,
On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
You should use 64 bit if possible but
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:33 -0400, ken wrote:
On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
JD,
On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those
On 07/22/2010 05:43 PM JohnS wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:33 -0400, ken wrote:
On 07/22/2010 02:39 PM Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
JD,
On 22/07/10 10:25, John Doe wrote:
I was wondering if anyone would know the cons of running a PAE kernel...?
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:51 PM, Markus Falb wrote:
On 22/07/2010 19:07, Warren Young wrote:
On 7/22/2010 3:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
I have a 4GB pc and was wondering if it was worth going the PAE way to gain
those exta 700MB...
Very few programs can use PAE to get at that extra RAM. Can
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:55 -0400, ken wrote:
On 07/22/2010 05:43 PM JohnS wrote:
I'm trying to catch up...
Is the 737M cached (in the output above) what is reserved for bios or
chipset...? and what is gained back through remapping?
---
The 737 is for Programs and Applications use and not
On 22/07/10 22:33, ken wrote:
Is the 737M cached (in the output above) what is reserved for bios or
chipset...? and what is gained back through remapping?
Nope, it simply means even if I had 2GB RAM, there'd be plenty I'm not
using for anything but cache - I don't do much on this laptop but
Hi John,
On 22/07/10 19:56, JohnS wrote:
Try about 69Gbytes What are you fiddling with? limits.conf?
I think you read my mail too quickly and wrote a reply in similar speed.
:) So did I read the original post too quickly and didn't realise he was
complaining about the memory hole...
You're
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 23:42 +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
Hi John,
On 22/07/10 19:56, JohnS wrote:
Try about 69Gbytes What are you fiddling with? limits.conf?
I think you read my mail too quickly and wrote a reply in similar speed.
:) So did I read the original post too quickly and didn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
