Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:04:17 -0600
From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>
To: Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Bumping up {MAX,DFLT}*PHYS (was Re: Bumping up {MAX,DFL}*SIZ in i386)
Message-ID: <20010131140416.C21193@dan.emsphone.com>
In-Reply-To: <vmhf2g5lrj.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>; from "Seigo Tanimura" on Wed Jan 31 14:33:04 GMT 2001
References: <vmhf2g5lrj.wl@rina.r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jan 31), Seigo Tanimura said: > Now that even an entry-model workstation can equip memory up to 1GB > or more, MAXDSIZ and DFLDSIZ should be increased so that a process > can make use of large memory. On the other hand, MAXDSIZ is also > likely to hit VM_MAXUSER_ADDRESS, which is generally 3GB and may be > 2GB if the size of KVM is expanded to the maximum. MAXDSIZ should > thus not exceed 2GB. On a similar note, is there any reason for us to have DFLTPHYS at 64k anymore? With the insane interface speeds of SCSI and ATA devices nowadays, you can easily hit 600 I/Os per second on sequential reads (40MB/sec, 64K per I/O). Would anything break if MAXPHYS/DFLTPHYS was bumped to say, 1mb? -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010131140416.C21193>