From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 22 06:37:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA16961 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 06:37:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from adam.adonai.net (adam.adonai.net [207.8.83.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA16867 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 06:36:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from leec@adam.adonai.net) Received: from localhost (leec@localhost) by adam.adonai.net (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA06182; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:36:23 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:36:23 -0600 (CST) From: "Lee Crites (AEI)" To: Amancio Hasty cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Had the shotgun out and pointed at my -current/SMP box... In-Reply-To: <199801220651.WAA00508@rah.star-gate.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk =>>So I pop the cover off this bad boy and lo and behold, 2 64MB parity's =>>from one vendor, 2 more 64MB parity's froma different vendor. => =>Are you sure that NT was seeing all the memory or using it ? I have no clue what this guy's situation is, but remember, y'all, our illustrious competitor, NT, is quite a bit slower than we are. It is possible that NT was slower than the slower of the two sets of ram, so it *really* could have never noticed the problem. FreeBSD, on the other hand, obviously did. So I'd bet NT saw all of the memory *and* was able to use it. We just couldn't. My first FreeBSD box was a converted NT (3.xx) box which labored under only 8 users. Under fbsd I tested a max of 70+ users. (p200/128meg for those who care). Pretty fair difference from my perspective... Lee