On Thu 2013-01-31 23:38:27, Phil Turmel wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> > [trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
>
> Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
> multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way.
On Thu 2013-01-31 23:38:27, Phil Turmel wrote:
On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
[trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way. Unless
On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> [trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way. Unless you
fix it yourself, and everyone seems to be
Dear Ben,
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
>>> No it isn't.
>> Could I please ask you to expand on that?
>
> I already did, a few messages back.
OK, thanks. Noting however that fewer than those back, I said:
... PAE with any RAM fails the "sleep test":
n=0; while [ $n -lt 33000 ];
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:12 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> >> PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> Could I please ask you to expand on that?
I already did, a few messages back.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Everything should be made as simple as
Dear Ben,
>> PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
>
> No it isn't.
Could I please ask you to expand on that?
Thanks, Paul
Paul Szabo p...@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of SydneyAustralia
--
To unsubscribe from
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:06 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> > Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
> > selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with >16GB RAM and
> > a capable processor.
>
> Don't you mean change to amd64
Dear Ben,
> Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
> selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with >16GB RAM and
> a capable processor.
Don't you mean change to amd64 for >4GB (or any RAM), never using PAE?
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM. More
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 20:07 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> Thanks for the repeated explanations.
>
> > PAE was a stop-gap ...
> > ... [PAE] completely untenable.
>
> Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
> work? Maybe you should have had
Dear Ben,
Thanks for the repeated explanations.
> PAE was a stop-gap ...
> ... [PAE] completely untenable.
Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
work? Maybe you should have had such comments in the code.
Seems that amd64 now works "somewhat": on Debian the
Dear Ben,
Thanks for the repeated explanations.
PAE was a stop-gap ...
... [PAE] completely untenable.
Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
work? Maybe you should have had such comments in the code.
Seems that amd64 now works somewhat: on Debian the
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 20:07 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
Dear Ben,
Thanks for the repeated explanations.
PAE was a stop-gap ...
... [PAE] completely untenable.
Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
work? Maybe you should have had such
Dear Ben,
Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with 16GB RAM and
a capable processor.
Don't you mean change to amd64 for 4GB (or any RAM), never using PAE?
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM. More
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:06 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
Dear Ben,
Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with 16GB RAM and
a capable processor.
Don't you mean change to amd64 for 4GB (or
Dear Ben,
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
No it isn't.
Could I please ask you to expand on that?
Thanks, Paul
Paul Szabo p...@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of SydneyAustralia
--
To unsubscribe from this
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:12 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
Dear Ben,
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
No it isn't.
Could I please ask you to expand on that?
I already did, a few messages back.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
Dear Ben,
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
No it isn't.
Could I please ask you to expand on that?
I already did, a few messages back.
OK, thanks. Noting however that fewer than those back, I said:
... PAE with any RAM fails the sleep test:
n=0; while [ $n -lt 33000 ]; do sleep 600
On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
[trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way. Unless you
fix it yourself, and everyone seems to be
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 06:40 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Pavel and Dave,
>
> > The assertion was that 4GB with no PAE passed a forkbomb test (ooming)
> > while 4GB of RAM with PAE hung, thus _PAE_ is broken.
>
> Yes, PAE is broken. Still, maybe the above needs slight correction:
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 06:40 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
Dear Pavel and Dave,
The assertion was that 4GB with no PAE passed a forkbomb test (ooming)
while 4GB of RAM with PAE hung, thus _PAE_ is broken.
Yes, PAE is broken. Still, maybe the above needs slight correction:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 07:36 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> >> Seems that any i386 PAE machine will go OOM just by running a few
> >> processes. To reproduce:
> >> sh -c 'n=0; while [ $n -lt 1 ]; do sleep 600 & ((n=n+1)); done'
> >> ...
> > I think what you're seeing
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 07:36 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
Dear Dave,
Seems that any i386 PAE machine will go OOM just by running a few
processes. To reproduce:
sh -c 'n=0; while [ $n -lt 1 ]; do sleep 600 ((n=n+1)); done'
...
I think what you're seeing here is that, as
22 matches
Mail list logo
