From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar  4 14:29:30 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1ADB106566C
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 14:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from fbsd06+TW=175cc7b7@mlists.homeunix.com)
Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net (mxout-04.mxes.net [216.86.168.179])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87158FC2A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 14:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from fbsd06+TW=175cc7b7@mlists.homeunix.com)
Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85ECDD059E
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Tue,  4 Mar 2008 09:29:29 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:29:26 +0000
From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20080304142926.2308a530@gumby.homeunix.com.>
In-Reply-To: <47CD1FDC.9090007@datapipe.com>
References: <47CC940B.5000400@123.com.sv> <47CC9BC0.1090408@datapipe.com>
	<18380.40222.870279.279849@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
	<20080304034416.1ae48519@gumby.homeunix.com.>
	<18380.53126.160647.421844@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
	<47CD1FDC.9090007@datapipe.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: RAM not recognized
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:29:31 -0000

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:09:32 -0600
"Paul A. Procacci" <pprocacci@datapipe.com> wrote:

> Robert Huff wrote:
> > RW writes:
> >
> >   
> >>  And also bear in mind that amd64 uses memory less efficiently
> >>  than i386
> >>     
> >
> > 	Would you care to elaborate?  (A pointer will do.)
> >

> The only 'less efficient' thing 64-bit programs have, are larger 
> pointers as well as other potenial data items.  Though I'm not sure
> I'd consider this 'less efficient'.

I would say that using more memory to achieve the same thing would be a
reasonable definition of "using memory less efficiently". It depends on
your application, for example IIRC squid uses about 40% more memory on
large caches under amd64 because of the huge linked-lists it uses for
indexing.  

At 4GB it's not a cut and dried choice even if there are no
64-bit compatibility problems.