From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 11 20:50:42 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 6B40737B71A for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:50:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2C4oOD26311; Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:50:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:50:24 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Joseph Gleason Cc: Ian Campbell , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process Message-ID: <20010311205023.P18351@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010311204130.N18351@fw.wintelcom.net> <003701c0aaaf$a4566ce0$dc02010a@fireduck.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <003701c0aaaf$a4566ce0$dc02010a@fireduck.com>; from clash@tasam.com on Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 11:48:09PM -0500 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Joseph Gleason [010311 20:48] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alfred Perlstein" > To: "Ian Campbell" > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 23:41 > Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process > > > > * 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. > > > > I know very little about how kernel or low level processor stuff works, but > shouldn't we be able to do a 4GB process on a 32-bit system? > The limitation of 2GB per process should only be an issue if there is some > need to use signed numbers, right? Yes, we use signed numbers. Check the list archives, there's some pretty detailed discussions that explain why it's this way. -- -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