> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:30:47PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: >> > > > Quote all of it: > >>>> You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you >>>> still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and that is divided between >>>> kernel and user space hence why a process gets 2(ish)Gb. These >>>> limitations don't apply to a true 64bit system. > > Note the mention of division between kernel and user space. Yes, I > could have made it blindingly obvious the 4Gb limit applied to the > process... mea culpa. You can stuff more memory into an i386 PAE > capable machine and have more processes but it does not take away the > limitations on those processes.
You needed to make it "blindly obvious" because most people who would have immediately understood what you were saying are already knowledgeable about PAE. > >> >> When did we start talking about a per-process limit, versus how much >> memory the OS can operate? >> > > When PAE was mentioned. > Only someone very familiar with PAE would figure that out right away. >>This is an important distinction to make, given >> that the original poster said: >> >> "Actually the B590 comes with 2GB RAM" >> >> That's the laptop he was installing NetBSD on. And laptops or desktops >> with 2,4, or 8GB are going to common machines that users could ask about >> installing NetBSD on. Mentioning a 4GB per process limit to these people >> is absurd. >> > > What? To actually mention a technical limitation of i386/PAE? That > particular laptop can support up to 8Gb of RAM so it is feasible that > someone could install a 32bit NetBSD using PAE to access all the memory > and then wonder why their applications can only see 2-3Gb. It happens. And some people need i386 (if they need to run wine, for example, as was mentioned in the thread). That happens too. > >> If other users have questions about what port >> to run on a laptop or desktop and read this thread it would just confuse >> them. This is netbsd-users, not tech-kern, or even port-i386/port-amd64. >> > > In that case, why mention PAE at all? There was pretty clear advice > prior to your email recommending just running amd64. Your message > looked to be implying that i386/PAE was just as functional as amd64. > This is not the case. I implied nothing of the sort. I asked a question (read my original post): >Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and >thus can access >2GB of RAM? I was hoping that someone would provide helpful information about PAE support in i386. What I got was cryptic and would have required that I spend a fair amount of time reading about PAE to actually understand it. Usually people here are helpful. You were dismissive and rude. I apologize for responding in kind, but this was the first time I was ever unhappy that I posted to a NetBSD mailing list. > >> I think he (and maybe you) just want to show how smart you are, tossing >> out facts that are meaningless trivia in the current context, rather >> than >> paying attention to and answering questions from users. >> > > This paragraph was totally unnecessary and pretty disrespectful to two > NetBSD developers. >
