Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:48:19 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=" <des@des.no> Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Time to bump default VM_SWZONE_SIZE_MAX? Message-ID: <201208240748.19737.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86a9xklj3j.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <502831B7.1080309@freebsd.org> <201208141346.12782.jhb@freebsd.org> <86a9xklj3j.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, August 24, 2012 5:44:48 am Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes: > > Hmm, this is not true on i386 where the problem is not just the physical > > RAM required, but also address space. (The swap zone is all mapped int= o KVA=20 > > even if it isn't used.) This is why Alan's e-mail specifically > > mentioned amd64, ia64, etc. but not i386 in his list. I think i386 sti= ll > > needs this limit, and I think your commit jumped the gun a bit. >=20 > How about we reinstate the limit on i386, but increase it to 64 MB? > That would increase the theoretical maximum to ~15 GB. People with 8 GB > swap would get a warning, but would be unlikely to run into trouble. >=20 > (or we could increase the limit to 72351744 bytes, which is the precise > amount required to support 16 GB) Note that on i386 you can't get more than 4GB of RAM without PAE, and if you have any modern x86 box with > 4GB of RAM, you are most likely running amd64 on it, not i386. I think i386 would be fine to just keep the limit it had. =2D-=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201208240748.19737.jhb>