On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:44:48 am Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> writes: > > Hmm, this is not true on i386 where the problem is not just the physical > > RAM required, but also address space. (The swap zone is all mapped into > > KVA > > even if it isn't used.) This is why Alan's e-mail specifically > > mentioned amd64, ia64, etc. but not i386 in his list. I think i386 still > > needs this limit, and I think your commit jumped the gun a bit. > > How about we reinstate the limit on i386, but increase it to 64 MB? > That would increase the theoretical maximum to ~15 GB. People with 8 GB > swap would get a warning, but would be unlikely to run into trouble. > > (or we could increase the limit to 72351744 bytes, which is the precise > amount required to support 16 GB)
Note that on i386 you can't get more than 4GB of RAM without PAE, and if you have any modern x86 box with > 4GB of RAM, you are most likely running amd64 on it, not i386. I think i386 would be fine to just keep the limit it had. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
