From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Nov 23 18:40:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25091
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:40:06 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA25031;
          Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:39:54 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jmb)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199711240239.SAA25031@hub.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: performance differences
To: shawn@luke.cpl.net (Shawn Ramsey)
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 18:39:54 -0800 (PST)
Cc: garbanzo@hooked.net, jmb@freebsd.org, wweng@stevens-tech.edu,
        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971123175137.7393A-100000@luke.cpl.net> from "Shawn Ramsey" at Nov 23, 97 05:52:48 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Shawn Ramsey wrote:
> 
> > > 	installed.  The amount used is reported in the startup messages,
> > > 	which the reviewers must have missed.
> > > 
> > > 	they did not do the minimum of building a kernel to use
> > > 	the larger amount of memory available
> > 
> > The whole point of this was to test a machine "out of the box". I.E. doing
> > as little customization as possible.  If they had tested with 3.0 (a.k.a.
> > -current) which sizes >64M OTH, methinks that FreeBSD would have come out
> > on top.
> 
> If I remember correctly, this upset someone on the FreeBSD core team(David
> Greenman?), and this bug was fixed. :) Better late than never...

	correct....david redid the memory detection code.
jmb