From owner-cvs-all Thu Mar 11 17:48:49 1999 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB61415018; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:48:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id RAA71979; Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:48:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:48:09 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199903120148.RAA71979@apollo.backplane.com> To: Greg Lehey Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , "Jan B. Koum " , David Greenman , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD/OS compatibility (was: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf .. References: <19990311152448.A19522@best.com> <5303.921195837@zippy.cdrom.com> <19990312103615.J490@lemis.com> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk A year ago we didn't have to worry too much about people sticking a gig of memory into a machine, but that was a year ago. The cost of a 256MB machine a year ago is roughly equivalent to the cost of a 512MB to 1GB machine now, and it takes that much memory to truely utilize the cheap computing power now available. Today, 512MB configurations are commonplace and this is right on the edge of what FreeBSD's KVM configuration could scale to until DG's commit. 1GB+ machines are showing up with increasing frequency. These configurations are only going to get larger as time continues to flow. I didn't realize that we already didn't have modern BSDI compatibility or I would have pushed for the KVM increase earlier. If all we are losing is legacy BSDI support, then that is all the more reason to bump up the kernel's KVM capability now. 1GB should be sufficient to handle an IA32 box containing 4GB of memory. I think it is well worth the hassle to fix this now. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message