From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 25 00:26:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7BF616A420 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:26:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED1343D97 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:26:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085371A3C28; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:26:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 65462515B2; Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:26:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:26:28 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Dan Charrois Message-ID: <20051125002628.GB33000@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <24EC8636-1C7E-418A-BD16-41F5AF57C988@syz.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <24EC8636-1C7E-418A-BD16-41F5AF57C988@syz.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD unstable on Dell 1750 using SMP? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:26:49 -0000 --5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:49:10PM -0700, Dan Charrois wrote: > I just thought of one other bit of info that may be relevant to the =20 > auto-rebooting problem I've experienced with our PowerEdge 2850. =20 > Since the problem may be related to memory allocation, I thought I =20 > should mention that we have more memory in that machine that is =20 > typical for some users. We have 5 Gigs installed. From "top": >=20 > Mem: 175M Active, 4121M Inact, 244M Wired, 244M Cache, 214M Buf, 23M =20 > Free > Swap: 10G Total, 12K Used, 10G Free >=20 > If this turns out to be an AMD64 vs. 386 issue and we were to revert =20 > to the 386 branch, would we still be able to access this memory, or =20 > would the 386 be limited to 4Gb (or maybe 2Gb) due to 32 bit =20 > addressing? We don't need anywhere near this much memory for user =20 > space programs, but the kernel does make good use of it to cache =20 > commonly accessed regions of the file system in memory. There are no issues with using 5GB of RAM on AMD64, unless of course you have bad memory (I assume you already ruled this out by swapping out the RAM, making sure you don't have mismatched RAM with different characteristics, etc). On i386 this would be limited to 4GB unless you enable PAE, which has performance implications (how much depends on your CPU) and which may not be supported by the drivers you need (see the PAE kernel config file). Kris --5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDhlo0Wry0BWjoQKURAk+mAJ9xvBSbh6idnvDmsQl1Q/Vi0+N94gCgvUzd dVi8kJlxR0TUgGo2V7Mm6R4= =a0vY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs--