The memory up high can get filled up by a process with lots of threads. Each thread has a stack up high in memory.
I don't have any specific knowledge about this, but I would guess that someone thought that putting shared libraries in the middle would work best for most people. The next time someone tells me we don't need 64 bit addressing I am going to point them to this discussion. -----Original Message----- From: Innes Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 memory map differences? Chris, Hey sorry I didn't mean to say that what you suggested wasn't neat - I'm grateful to you for letting me know there is at least one way to get around this issue! I mean that the solution itself (moving the libs around manually) is not particularly 'tidy'. Firstly it's based on a Redhat modification (so won't work on SUSE I don't believe, which is important for me) and secondly it puts the shared libraries down towards the malloc() zone rather than up at the top of memory out of the way. The final nail in the coffin is that this is such an obvious problem - no user should have to worry unduly about this sort of stuff, the computer should be able to arrange it for a best fit (yeah, right)! All of which makes me wonder what the underlying technical reasons and thinking were, there's normally a valid reason behind seemingly odd decisions like 'lets stick this stuff right in the middle where it'll really get in the way'! Cheers, Innes. On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:09:24 -0500, "Little, Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > apologies for not being more specific or "neat". It's early in the > morning > for me. However, download the notes for Oracle 9iR2 for linux/390. It > gives instructions on moving that stuff around. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Innes Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:34 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 memory map differences? > > > > > > Good to know, but not very neat is it?! Can anyone else > > answer my other > > questions about the 'new' behaviour I perceive on Intel? > > > > Thanks, Innes. > > > > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:27:08 -0500, "Little, Chris" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > Yes it does work. We relinked Oracle to take advantage of > > it. It gives > > > a > > > 1.5g shared segment. > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO > > LINUX-390 or visit > > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or > visit > http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
