On Mon, 14 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> It would be cool if one of you two could update the docs ;)
OK, here is my attempt, as a patch to Configure.help in 2.4.5-pre1. I
hope it is clear, accurate, and not too long-winded, and that my mailer
does not munge patches.
Cheers,
Wayne
---
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
> Oh I get it NOW. "Off" means the docs are just plain "off".
It is ... "off" means we do 1GB-128MB = 896MB of memory.
It would be cool if one of you two could update the docs ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However,
Brian Gerst wrote:
> >
> > It seems obvious once you know why the limits are there. The 1 GB
> > limit (actually 1024-128 MB = 896 MB) is a software limit; the 4 GB
> > and 64 GB limits are hardware limits and are exact.
>
> Even with the 4GB and 64GB options, some physical address space has to
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> > > In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > You need to compile highmem support into
Rik van Riel wrote:
> Where did you get the mythical "1GB" option?
>
> Last I looked we had "off", "4GB" and "64GB" ;)
We do .. under 2.4.x
In 2.2.x we have 1 Gb and 2 GB ... 2.2.19 at least
--
=
Mohammad A. Haque
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
>
> > Ahh, it's totally obvious. 1 GB option = 890 MB, 4 GB option =
> > 4GB. Can I assume a linear relation and get 66.2 MB when I
> > select the 64 MB option?
>
> Where did you get the mythical "1GB" option?
>
> Last I looked
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
> Ahh, it's totally obvious. 1 GB option = 890 MB, 4 GB option =
> 4GB. Can I assume a linear relation and get 66.2 MB when I
> select the 64 MB option?
Where did you get the mythical "1GB" option?
Last I looked we had "off", "4GB" and "64GB" ;)
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Rik van Riel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> > In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> >
> > > You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
> > > use more
Jeff Golds wrote:
>
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> > > In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> > >
> > > > You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
> > > > use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
> > > >
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> > In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> >
> > > You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
> > > use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
> > > performance...
> >
> > On a similar
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
>
> > You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
> > use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
> > performance...
>
> On a similar note, what is the maximum physical
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
> use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
> performance...
On a similar note, what is the maximum physical memory supported by
the 4GB option?
Cheers, Wayne
-
To
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
> I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB
> of ECC RAM and found that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB
> of RAM.
> Anyone know what is going on with 2.4.4?
-EUSER (User Error)
You need to compile highmem support into the
> I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB of ECC RAM and found
>that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB of RAM. The 2.4.2 kernel (with RedHat
>patches from the 7.1 release) worked fine as did the 2.4.0 kernel (with RedHat
>patches from the 7.0 release).#
Built it
Hi folks,
I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB of ECC RAM and found
that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB of RAM. The 2.4.2 kernel (with RedHat
patches from the 7.1 release) worked fine as did the 2.4.0 kernel (with RedHat patches
from the 7.0 release).
Anyone
Hi folks,
I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB of ECC RAM and found
that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB of RAM. The 2.4.2 kernel (with RedHat
patches from the 7.1 release) worked fine as did the 2.4.0 kernel (with RedHat patches
from the 7.0 release).
Anyone
I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB of ECC RAM and found
that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB of RAM. The 2.4.2 kernel (with RedHat
patches from the 7.1 release) worked fine as did the 2.4.0 kernel (with RedHat
patches from the 7.0 release).#
Built it with
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
I installed the 2.4.4 kernel on a dual P3-733 system with 1 GB
of ECC RAM and found that /proc/meminfo reports back only 899MB
of RAM.
Anyone know what is going on with 2.4.4?
-EUSER (User Error)
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
performance...
On a similar note, what is the maximum physical memory supported by
the 4GB option?
Cheers, Wayne
-
To
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
performance...
On a similar note, what is the maximum physical memory
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
performance...
On a similar note, what is the
Jeff Golds wrote:
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
use more than 890 MB of RAM, set it to maximum 4GB for best
performance...
On
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want to
use more than 890 MB of
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
Ahh, it's totally obvious. 1 GB option = 890 MB, 4 GB option =
4GB. Can I assume a linear relation and get 66.2 MB when I
select the 64 MB option?
Where did you get the mythical 1GB option?
Last I looked we had off, 4GB and 64GB ;)
cheers,
Rik
--
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
Ahh, it's totally obvious. 1 GB option = 890 MB, 4 GB option =
4GB. Can I assume a linear relation and get 66.2 MB when I
select the 64 MB option?
Where did you get the mythical 1GB option?
Last I looked we had off, 4GB
Rik van Riel wrote:
Where did you get the mythical 1GB option?
Last I looked we had off, 4GB and 64GB ;)
We do .. under 2.4.x
In 2.2.x we have 1 Gb and 2 GB ... 2.2.19 at least
--
=
Mohammad A. Haque
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Rik van Riel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
You need to compile highmem support into the kernel if you want
Brian Gerst wrote:
It seems obvious once you know why the limits are there. The 1 GB
limit (actually 1024-128 MB = 896 MB) is a software limit; the 4 GB
and 64 GB limits are hardware limits and are exact.
Even with the 4GB and 64GB options, some physical address space has to
be
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Jeff Golds wrote:
Oh I get it NOW. Off means the docs are just plain off.
It is ... off means we do 1GB-128MB = 896MB of memory.
It would be cool if one of you two could update the docs ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM
On Mon, 14 May 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
It would be cool if one of you two could update the docs ;)
OK, here is my attempt, as a patch to Configure.help in 2.4.5-pre1. I
hope it is clear, accurate, and not too long-winded, and that my mailer
does not munge patches.
Cheers,
Wayne
---
30 matches
Mail list logo
