Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-20 Thread Dave Anderson
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Dave Anderson wrote: I've been looking at a bunch of notebook dmesgs (i386, single processor) recently and have noticed that the value reported for 'real mem' is almost always much lower than the amount of memory actually installed. A typical example is OpenBSD 5.0

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-20 Thread David Vasek
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Dave Anderson wrote: Thanks to all who've replied. It seems kind of disgusting that a modern video card can grab 1/4 of the available physical address space on i386, but I suppose that pretty much everyone with such a card is running amd64 instead. If you want to feel

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-19 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2011-08-18, Dave Anderson d...@daveanderson.com wrote: Is there really supposed to be this much reserved space very often, yes.

'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-18 Thread Dave Anderson
I've been looking at a bunch of notebook dmesgs (i386, single processor) recently and have noticed that the value reported for 'real mem' is almost always much lower than the amount of memory actually installed. A typical example is OpenBSD 5.0 (GENERIC) #39: Mon Aug 8 14:53:43 MDT 2011

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-18 Thread Dave Anderson
On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Dave Anderson wrote: Oops! I forgot to include the full dmesg; here it is. I've been looking at a bunch of notebook dmesgs (i386, single processor) recently and have noticed that the value reported for 'real mem' is almost always much lower than the amount of memory

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-18 Thread Benny Lofgren
On 2011-08-18 21.16, Dave Anderson wrote: I've been looking at a bunch of notebook dmesgs (i386, single processor) recently and have noticed that the value reported for 'real mem' is almost always much lower than the amount of memory actually installed. A typical example is OpenBSD 5.0

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-18 Thread Pedro de Oliveira
On 18-08-2011 20:16, Dave Anderson wrote: I've been looking at a bunch of notebook dmesgs (i386, single processor) recently and have noticed that the value reported for 'real mem' is almost always much lower than the amount of memory actually installed. A typical example is OpenBSD 5.0

Re: 'real mem' in dmesg much lower than expected?

2011-08-18 Thread Chris Cappuccio
i386 port has access to 32-bit (4 GB) address space but only allows you to use up to 3 GB of RAM at most, the last 1 GB of address space is used for addressing devices, and as others are saying here, video card shared mem also eats up space 4 GB openbsd didn't bother with PAE on i386, it's too