From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 11 20:41:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF02637B718 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:41:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2C4fUY26009; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:41:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:41:30 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Ian Campbell Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process Message-ID: <20010311204130.N18351@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ianc@ednet.co.uk on Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:13:53AM +0000 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Ian Campbell [010311 16:14] wrote: > > Hello, > Could anybody advise me on the possiblity of having greater than > 2GB per process on FreeBSD. I have tried increasing the limit beyond this > and the kernel compiles successfully - however libc causes every process > to segfault. I am assuming that just recompiling the C library wouldn't do > the trick but perhaps someone could confirm this. It's not possible on the Intel archetecture with the current system, changing the current intel system to use > 2GB processes would cost too much in terms of performance (64 bit values on a 32 bit system). At least that's what i've been told. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message