Tom Samplonius wrote:
- Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
more
reliable environment other than PAE?
Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more
reliable environment other than PAE?
I was faced with a similar problem last autmumn - we had been running 6.2
on a set of servers with 4 gig or RAM, but purchased new servers with
16 gig in them. I experimented with various
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64?
Seems just the same as i386.
Some poorly written software fails to run properly in 64-bit
environment. I have one such package, and my solution was to compile
it on a
Kevin K [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
Several people have already pointed out that you can either
run FreeBSD/i386+PAE or FreeBSD/amd64 (64bit).
However, there's an important piece of
Tom Samplonius wrote:
Is PAE really that stable? I thought it was fairly unpolished, mainly
because PAE is seen as a weak kludge implemented by Intel because they all
thought we would all be using Itanium's by now. Intel reversed their folly
pretty quickly, adopted the x86-64
Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is
concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would
use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE.
To the original poster - does a PAE kernel actually boot on your
16 gig machines ? My problem was
and rock-solid logic ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan Voras
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:35 AM
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
Tom Samplonius wrote
* Tom Samplonius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080219 23:00] wrote:
- Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
more
reliable environment other than PAE?
Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE)
in order to see this. I understand this is still considered a Beta
implementation ,and this is a production
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more
reliable environment other than PAE?
You have two options, and these are the only two I'm aware of:
1) Run amd64 (64-bit).
2) Run i386 with PAE enabled.
I would choose
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote:
I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE)
in order to see this. I understand this is
* Kevin K [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080219 14:40] wrote:
I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE)
in order to see this. I understand this is still
- Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
more
reliable environment other than PAE?
Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable (6.3 and beyond)
13 matches
Mail list logo
