Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 22 Apr 2002 07:18:06 -0700
From:      " Vizion Communication" <vizion@ixpres.com>
To:        "David Schultz" <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>, "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Cc:        <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE not easily scalable to large servers ... ?
Message-ID:  <008001c1ea08$872b62d0$9865fea9@VIZION2000>
References:  <20020421191440.J1721-100000@mail1.hub.org> <3CC3D494.649C2A8E@mindspring.com> <20020422060952.B31888@HAL9000.wox.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Test - Please ignore
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "David Schultz" <dschultz@uclink.Berkeley.EDU>
To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Cc: <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE not easily scalable to large servers ... =
?


> Thus spake Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>:
> > If you want more, then you need to use a 64 bit processor (or use a
> > processor that supports bank selection, and hack up FreeBSD to do
> > bank swapping on 2G at a time, just like Linux has been hacked up,
> > and expect that it won't be very useful).
>=20
> I'm guessing that this just means looking at more than 4 GB of memory
> by working with 2 GB frames at a time.  As I recall, David Greenman
> said that this hack would essentially require a rewrite of the VM
> system.  Does this just boil down to using 36 bit physical addresses?
> Are there plans for FreeBSD to support it, or is everyone just waiting
> until 64 bit processors become more common?
>=20
> > You can't
> > really avoid that, for the most part, since there's a shared TLB
> > cache that you really don't have opportunity to manage, other than
> > by seperating 4M vs. 4K pages (and 2M, etc., for the Pentium Pro,
> > though variable page granularity is not supported in FreeBSD, since
> > it's not common to most hardware people actually have).
>=20
> Does FreeBSD use 4M pages exclusively for kernel memory, as in
> Solaris, or is there a more complicated scheme?
>=20
> > If you increase the KVA, then you will decrease the UVA available to
> > user processes.  The total of the two can not exceed 4G.
>=20
> In Linux, all of physical memory is mapped into the kernel's virtual
> address space, and hence, until recently Linux was limited to ~3 GB of
> physical memory.  FreeBSD, as I understand, doesn't do that.  So is
> the cause of this limitation that the top half of the kernel has to
> share a virtual address space with user processes?
>=20
> I'll have to read those books one of these days when I have time(6).
> Thanks for the info.
>=20
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
>=20


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?008001c1ea08$872b62d0$9865fea9>