-Original Message-
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
[mailto:owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hill
Sent: 27 May 2011 02:16
To: Gary Gatten; Chuck Swiger
Cc: 'questi...@freebsd.org'
Subject: Re: RAM needed for DHCP + router?
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Gary
--As of May 26, 2011 7:46:10 PM -0400, Chris Hill is alleged to have said:
I'm looking to build a NAT / DHCP box for a lab network for my company.
My question is, how do I estimate the amount of RAM the machine will need?
This box will be running isc-dhcpd, doing NAT either via natd or pf, and
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org wrote:
I'm looking to build a NAT / DHCP box for a lab network for my company. My
question is, how do I estimate the amount of RAM the machine will need?
FWIW, I can tell you some experiences that I've had.
Example #1:
At one
On Fri, 27 May 2011, Jaime Kikpole wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org wrote:
I'm looking to build a NAT / DHCP box for a lab network for my company. My
question is, how do I estimate the amount of RAM the machine will need?
FWIW, I can tell you some
On May 26, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
I'm looking to build a NAT / DHCP box for a lab network for my company. My
question is, how do I estimate the amount of RAM the machine will need?
How many DHCP leases and NAT clients?
ISC's DHCPd typically runs a few tens of MB unless you have
Your biggest consumers would be FBSD itself and the routing tables. I *think*
full internet routing tables are still less than 512MB, (google to check), so
unless you have more routes than that - 512MB may work, 1GB most likely will.
Too many unknowns, like; is this ipv4 only or 6 and 4
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Gary Gatten wrote:
Your biggest consumers would be FBSD itself and the routing tables. I
*think* full internet routing tables are still less than 512MB, (google
to check), so unless you have more routes than that - 512MB may work,
1GB most likely will. Too many unknowns,
David Scheidt wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:25:19AM +, RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:23:06 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
When I boot this machine it usually shows (in top) about 11 G Free
in the Mem: line
The machine, in this snippet,
Tim Kellers kell...@njit.edu writes:
My Machine: Dell 2850 PE w/ 12 GB of Ram
www# uname -a
FreeBSD www 7.1-STABLE FreeBSD 7.1-STABLE #2: Tue Jan 6 19:24:57 EST 2009
r...@www:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DELL64 amd64
When I boot this machine it usually shows (in top) about 11 G Free in the
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:35:33 -0500
Tim Kellers kell...@njit.edu wrote:
I've never noticed this (the slow decline of Free) before on any
machine I've had. Maybe that just means it has happened and I
haven't noticed it, but I don't know.
FreeBSD has worked like that for a long time, it
Thanks to all who responded. I am familiar with the FAQ and what it says
about memory handling. This is my first time with installed RAM over 8
Gig in an AMD environment so I was just making sure there wasn't
something going on that looked odd to anyone else.
Tim
RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan
When I boot this machine it usually shows (in top) about 11 G Free in the
Mem: line
The machine, in this snippet, has been up for 5 days 22 hours and change and
it now shows 1436M free in the Mem: line
I've been watching the number and it has been slowly decreasing over the 5
days since its
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:23:06 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
When I boot this machine it usually shows (in top) about 11 G Free
in the Mem: line
The machine, in this snippet, has been up for 5 days 22 hours and
change and it now shows 1436M free in the
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:25:19AM +, RW wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:23:06 +0100 (CET)
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
When I boot this machine it usually shows (in top) about 11 G Free
in the Mem: line
The machine, in this snippet, has been up for 5
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:14:10 -0500
David Scheidt dsche...@panix.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 01:25:19AM +, RW wrote:
Although, looking at the output of top, most of the memory is in the
inactive state. As I understand it cache pages go from active to
cached, and the inactive
But to my surprise the workstation ran faster--but before adding RAM it did NOT
make use of the swap-partition and after the big RAM chip of course not too
(checked it with #top).
but more files are cached.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
herbert langhans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Honestly, I would never think that adding RAM to a comp with still
unused space left could speed it up.
That's because it doesn't have unused RAM. There are plenty of things
that can be stored in RAM which don't need to be moved to swap if the
RAM is
Jon Radel wrote:
herbert langhans wrote:
Hi Daemons,
recently I had to add some more RAM on a workstation. Was 512MB before and is
2GB now, the reason was to give some graphic apps more space.
But to my surprise the workstation ran faster--but before adding RAM it did NOT
make use of the
Jon Radel wrote:
herbert langhans wrote:
Hi Daemons,
recently I had to add some more RAM on a workstation. Was 512MB before and
is 2GB now, the reason was to give some graphic apps more space.
But to my surprise the workstation ran faster--but before adding RAM it did
NOT make use of the
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 09:28:47PM +0200, herbert langhans wrote:
Hi Daemons,
recently I had to add some more RAM on a workstation. Was 512MB before and is
2GB now, the reason was to give some graphic apps more space.
But to my surprise the workstation ran faster--but before adding RAM it
herbert langhans wrote:
Hi Daemons,
recently I had to add some more RAM on a workstation. Was 512MB before and is
2GB now, the reason was to give some graphic apps more space.
But to my surprise the workstation ran faster--but before adding RAM it did
NOT make use of the swap-partition
Hi Jon,
all kosher here, I have my FreeBSD workstation and will put some more RAM into
it. Just found it out on a penguin..
Honestly, I would never think that adding RAM to a comp with still unused space
left could speed it up. Was just a coincident to find it out. But it clearly
explains what
Robert Huff wrote:
RW writes:
And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently
than i386
Would you care to elaborate? (A pointer will do.)
Robert Huff
___
--
From: Paul A. Procacci [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 7:45 PM
To: Cesar Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RAM not recognized
Cesar Amaya wrote:
Hello every one, I have installed FreeBSD
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:09:32 -0600
Paul A. Procacci [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Huff wrote:
RW writes:
And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently
than i386
Would you care to elaborate? (A pointer will do.)
The only 'less efficient' thing
Cesar Amaya wrote:
Hello every one, I have installed FreeBSD-7.0_RELEASE on Dell Power
Edge 1950 Quad Core and 4GB of RAM.
The problem is that FreeBSD does not recognize all of the RAM.
This is part of the dmesg.
# dmesg
CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5420 @ 2.50GHz (2496.28-MHz
Paul A. Procacci writes:
AMD Features=0x2010NX,LM
AMD Features2=0x1LAHF
Cores per package: 4
real memory = 3484745728 (3323 MB)
avail memory = 3405631488 (3247 MB)
This is not a problem of FreeBSD but of i386/x86 architecture
which max memory limit is 4GB i theory and
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 19:51:42 -0500
Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul A. Procacci writes:
AMD Features=0x2010NX,LM
AMD Features2=0x1LAHF
Cores per package: 4
real memory = 3484745728 (3323 MB)
avail memory = 3405631488 (3247 MB)
This is not a problem of
RW writes:
And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently
than i386
Would you care to elaborate? (A pointer will do.)
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Xinyu Dong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello:
RAM disk to root file system.
I would like to use in embedded FreeBSD, and the creation of a 64 MB memory
disk, and all normal, but 128 MB RAM disk at the time of always
automatically restart.
Loader in the configuration file, use or use md_image
PS
I found the Release Notes for 6.1 with this being a known issue that
was FIXED:
http://people.freebsd.org/~bmah/relnotes/6.1-RELEASE/relnotes-i386.html
Doesn't seem fixed here...
I'm happy to help debug, alter C code, and run trials, etc...
Or perhaps I've just been really stupid and missed
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 09:00:39AM -0700, Dino Vliet wrote:
Dear bsd people,
I have this amd64 system running freebsd 6.1 with 1 GB
of RAM and everything worked very well. Then I've
added some more ram, 2 gb extra, to be precise and
aft first it seemd everything worked fine. I could
load
On 10/1/06, Dino Vliet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear bsd people,
I have this amd64 system running freebsd 6.1 with 1 GB
of RAM and everything worked very well. Then I've
added some more ram, 2 gb extra, to be precise and
aft first it seemd everything worked fine. I could
load larger files and
Dear bsd people,
I have this amd64 system running freebsd 6.1 with 1 GB of RAM
and everything worked very well. Then I've added some more
ram, 2 gb extra, to be precise and aft first it seemd
everything worked fine. I could load larger files and my java
apps didn't give me out-of
On Oct 1, 2006, at 9:00 AM, Dino Vliet wrote:
What should I do now? Continue using it, without
portupgrading or compiling a new kernel or ask a new
pair of banks at the store?
I actually had a strikingly similar problem. I would freeze on
portsnap updates. A -j8 buildworld would always
Philip Juels wrote:
I'm running into random seg faults during KDE and Gnome compilation, and
I and others on the list suspect faulty RAM. Are there any utils out
there that can test/diagnose RAM (aside from the laughable BIOS POST).
Kinda late now, I know, but I highly recommend the Ultimate
There doesn't appear to be any bulging caps. In fact, I tested the
DIMMs on a different PC and memtest confirmed their faultiness.
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Philip Juels wrote:
Curious...the system is a Dell Optiplex GX270...RAM system is PC3200
2x512MB DIMMs in a the
Curious...the system is a Dell Optiplex GX270...RAM system is PC3200
2x512MB DIMMs in a the dual-channel arrangment. If I run memtest
against this setup, I get numerous errors. However, if run memtest with
only one DIMM installed (either one), I get no reported errors. Would
this still be
It might be as simple as the bios settings. Which memtest tests gave errors?
Assuming that you have not upgraded the ram or anything like that, it
is probably the chipset. What type of chipset do you have?
On 1/27/06, Philip Juels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curious...the system is a Dell Optiplex
Billy Tallis wrote:
It might be as simple as the bios settings. Which memtest tests gave errors?
Assuming that you have not upgraded the ram or anything like that, it
is probably the chipset. What type of chipset do you have?
On 1/27/06, Philip Juels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curious...the
As of now, memtests 2,3, and 4 fail (waiting for the rest). The
following bits are listed as Err-Bits (1000,8000,2000).
The chipset is Intel i848/i865. I may install the DIMMs into another
machine and memtest them there.
Billy Tallis wrote:
It might be as simple as the bios
I switched the DIMMs from dual-channel to single-channel and so far (up
to test 4) I get no errors. Go figure.
Philip Juels wrote:
As of now, memtests 2,3, and 4 fail (waiting for the rest). The
following bits are listed as Err-Bits (1000,8000,2000).
The chipset is Intel
This system is listed with the RAM manufacturer's and according to
Kingston's notes:
Systems shipped with 800MHz FSB processors require DDR400 (KTD8300/xxx) parts.
Systems shipped with 533MHz FSB processors require DDR333 (KTD4550/xxx)
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Philip Juels wrote:
Curious...the system is a Dell Optiplex GX270...RAM system is PC3200 2x512MB
DIMMs in a the dual-channel arrangment. If I run memtest against this setup,
I get numerous errors. However, if run memtest with only one DIMM installed
(either one), I get
On 1/26/06, Philip Juels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running into random seg faults during KDE and Gnome compilation, and
I and others on the list suspect faulty RAM. Are there any utils out
there that can test/diagnose RAM (aside from the laughable BIOS POST).
http://www.memtest86.com/
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 10:49 -0500, Philip Juels wrote:
I'm running into random seg faults during KDE and Gnome compilation, and
I and others on the list suspect faulty RAM. Are there any utils out
there that can test/diagnose RAM (aside from the laughable BIOS POST).
THX
PJ
Thanks...I downloaded the iso and memtest confirmed that the system has
memory problems.
PJ
Noel Jones wrote:
On 1/26/06, Philip Juels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm running into random seg faults during KDE and Gnome compilation, and
I and others on the list suspect faulty RAM. Are there
On 11/8/05, fanijak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Haw meani memory RAM is consumed by boing ? I heave aproxsimaly 512RAM.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 07:56:04 -0400, Paul Diaguila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#mount -t -o -s1048576,noasync /dev/sd0s1b /var/spool/file
mount: exec mount_mfs not found in /sbin, /usr/sbin: No such file or
directory
Instead of mount, you ought to use the mount_mfs command. It should
also be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 09:57 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
If I put in additional 256MB RAM module ontop my already 256MB system,
don't I need to increase the /swap partition size? Current swap is only at
512 (mem x 2). How do you resize
Hello,
If I put in additional 256MB RAM module ontop my already 256MB system,
don't I need to increase the /swap partition size? Current swap is
only at 512 (mem x 2). How do you resize a partition inside a freebsd
slice, btw?
Thanks in advance.
Hello,
Resizing a partition is a bit
If I put in additional 256MB RAM module ontop my already 256MB
system, don't I need to increase the /swap partition size?
No. In fact you will need less swap space now.
The 2xRAM rule-of-thumb makes very little sense.
-- Richard
___
[EMAIL
I personally have no dedicate swap on the disk. I use vnconfig to mount a large
file for swap on my system.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:57:11 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
If I put in additional 256MB RAM module ontop my already 256MB system, don't I
need to increase the /swap partition
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Paul Patryas wrote:
What is the minimal amount of RAM do you need to install FreeBSD
4.6/5.0?
There is a lot of information on this in the INSTALL notes - and the
minumun suggested is 4Mb. I personally stick to 16Mb of memory as a
resonably minimum for a freebsd system
To whom it may concern:
What is the minimal amount of RAM do you need to install FreeBSD
4.6/5.0?
According to some docs at FreeBSD, you should only need 5MB to
install, and 4MB to run. However more than 5MB is of course
better.
Thank you.
No problem.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
- Original Message -
From: Paul Patryas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 7:56 AM
Subject: RAM
To whom it may concern:
What is the minimal amount of RAM do you need to install FreeBSD
4.6/5.0?
Thank you.
You need to read the install notes for
First, and before anything, you normally log in as root or are you just
trying to impress us?
Second, ram is a lot faster than using swap.
Third, the problem with the ssh trying to log in probably has to do with a
hostname resolving problem.
that is about it.
david
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002,
- Original Message -
From: David Nicholas Kayal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 12:19:17 -0800 (PST)
To: Charlie Root [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ram swap
First . . .
[most of the top post snipped]
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Charlie Root wrote:
Hey why everything
58 matches
Mail list logo
