Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 01:29:09 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Mixing amd64 kernel with i386 world Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomDMY=UPbHC_fHrGwbvAVoi4-2QBajQ9nVKVR4coJpDgg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1380376595.1197.309.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <20130928103758.GC27231@server.rulingia.com> <1380376595.1197.309.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+1. On 28 September 2013 06:56, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2013-09-28 at 20:37 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > I have a system with 4GB RAM and hence need to use an amd64 kernel to use > > all the RAM (I can only access 3GB RAM with an i386 kernel). OTOH, amd64 > > processes are significantly (50-100%) larger than equivalent i386 > processes > > and none none of the applications I'll be running on the system need to > be > > 64-bit. > > > > This implies that the optimal approach is an amd64 kernel with i386 > > userland (I'm ignoring PAE as a useable approach). I've successfully > > run i386 jails on amd64 systems so I know this mostly works. I also > > know that there are some gotchas: > > - kdump needs to match the kernel > > - anything accessing /dev/mem or /dev/kmem (which implies anything that > > uses libkvm) probably needs to match the kernel. > > > > Has anyone investigated this approach? > > > > Why are you ignoring PAE? It's been working for me for years. > Yeah, if there's PAE issues in -HEAD (read: there are, and we should fix the bugs that alfred/andre's autotuning stuff introduced) then we should fix it. PAE should still be working! -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomDMY=UPbHC_fHrGwbvAVoi4-2QBajQ9nVKVR4coJpDgg>