From: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm. Are you certain:
12-sec# dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/cache/bar bs=1024k count=64
64+0 records in
64+0 records out
67108864 bytes transferred in 18.790176 secs (3571487 bytes/sec)
13-sec# ls -l /var/cache/bar
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 67108864 Jan 16 22:44
I would like to thank the help from the following friends:
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED],Duncan Anker
[EMAIL PROTECTED],Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED],Greg
'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for solving the memory limit problem.
Thanks very much!
Sincerely,
Frank
Frank Li wrote:
[ ... ]
Cool! I created an additional swapfile according to its instruction.
Everything is smooth. Just one thing not quite understood.
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/swap0 bs=1024k count=64
It actually created a 64GB swapfile.
Hmm. Are you certain:
12-sec# dd if=/dev/zero
put your replies *below* the text you reply to. most questions@
subscribers are used to reading from top to bottom, from left to
right.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-01-15 22:02:49 -0600:
32-bit systems implementing VM typically could increase user-mode address
space up to 2 GB,
Frank Li wrote:
[ ... ]
Should I add more physical memory (if so should I reinstll OS)?
If you're actually doing something where the 512 MB datasize limit matters to
you, adding more physical memory will almost certainly speed things up.
No, don't reinstall; even Windows doesn't make you
Thanks, Roman,
options MAXDSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
options MAXSSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
options DFLDSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
Depending on what you're doing, you might well find using a 64-bit
platform (Alpha hardware? Solaris on SPARC?) to be more appropriate...
Which file
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 07:59, Frank Li wrote:
Thanks, Roman,
options MAXDSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
options MAXSSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
options DFLDSIZ=(256*1024*1024)
Depending on what you're doing, you might well find using a 64-bit
platform (Alpha hardware?
Thanks for all of your replies,
Now I can do it through recompiling the kernel and the limits did increase.
I haven't tried whether it can increase over 2G (I would love that if it
can!). The code I used cannot be easily changed to reduce memory
consumption but I think 2G would probably be
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 12:08, Frank Li wrote:
Thanks for all of your replies,
Now I can do it through recompiling the kernel and the limits did increase.
I haven't tried whether it can increase over 2G (I would love that if it
can!). The code I used cannot be easily changed to reduce
On Wednesday, 15 January 2003 at 18:36:31 -0600, Frank Li wrote:
The situation is as follows:
Physical memory is 128M, OS is FreeBSD 4.4.
My C++ simulation code mallocs large amount of memory. When running, I
found top shows SIZE is 514M, RES is 176M.
That's rather difficult on a machine
Thanks, Greg,
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Top shows:
Mem: 180M Active, 21M Inact, 32M Wired, 13M Cache, 35M Buf, 656K Free
This shows that you have much more than 128 MB of memory in the
machine.
I checked it again (by rebooting it and seeing its booting messages, stupid
Thanks, Chuck,
Which file should I put in the following ?
Frank
32-bit systems implementing VM typically could increase user-mode address
space up to 2 GB, although variants on that and other things (ie, where
devices get mapped into memory) make that only an approximation. For
FreeBSD:
#
On Wednesday, 15 January 2003 at 21:54:54 -0600, Frank Li wrote:
Thanks, Greg,
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Top shows:
Mem: 180M Active, 21M Inact, 32M Wired, 13M Cache, 35M Buf, 656K Free
This shows that you have much more than 128 MB of memory in the
machine.
I checked
13 matches
Mail list logo
