On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 02:38:23AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > This is a trivial implementation. I'm not very impressed.
>
> > Personally, I'm not interested in a huge user space,
>
> Maybe not you, but I bet the database and scientific
> computing people will be interested in having 64 GB
> memory support in this simple way.
All I was interested so far was more address space for a single
process and more physical memory for kernel use.
Both I've found in ALPHA machines and am happy with it.
Go and compare prices for ALPHA and i386 systems which support
more than 4G of physical memory and don't forget that you put
a lot of CPU power in managing the memory with i386.
In the unix world there is less reason to stuck with a single
architecture as in Windows.
If I need more than one process to gain use of the memory
I would consider using a second machine.
> > Fully populating both the transmit and receive windows for
> > 1M connections is 32G of RAM, right there... and it better
> > be kernel RAM, or you're screwed.
>
> Well, you _could_ store this memory in "files", which
> get mapped and unmapped by the same code the filesystem
> code uses to access file data in non-kernel-mapped RAM.
Consider that you don't need such evilness on existing Machines
such as ALPHA.
Well AFAIK FreeBSD currently doesn't support ALPHAs with that amount
of memory very well - but this can be considered more as a bug
than a missing feature and can be fixed.
--
B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Usergroup [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
