On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2003, at 16:08, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > That patch is in the RELENG_4 tree and will be included in 4.8 > > > > Great! Thanks for the info. > > > > > yes it was.. but not in RELENG_4_7 because that is for security > > patches. > > > > I'm showing my newbieness here. :-) Apologies. I knew that, but > for some reason it didn't occur to me that patches such as this > would only occur on the development branches. > > > > > 4.7 is being left behind.. look at 4.8 > > > > I guess I'll just wait for 4.8 to reach "RELEASE" level then and > work on reducing the workload of the system in the meantime, > though the hardware is nowhere near overloaded. I wish I could > track CURRENT, but I'm squeamish about that for a production > system such as this. look at RELENG_4 "NOW" because that will become 4.8. if you have problems with it then now is the time ot speak up before 4.8 is frozen in stone. > > > > IMHO, this issue could be a royal pain in the butt when I start > > > working on quad processor systems with 32GB of RAM (not unrealistic > > > at this company). > > > > Well we can't USE 32GB od RAM yet.. I doubt that 4.x will ever be able > > to do that (though I could be proven wrong). > > > > Really? I was under the impression that FreeBSD was capable of > addressing 8TB of RAM if the hardware supports it. On a ia64 machine I think (which i386 is not) > Don't > remember which FreeBSD list archive I read that in, but it's not a > topic that seems to come up often since most hardware is limited > to 4GB of address space. I've got access to hardware that can > address 32GB of RAM. Not sure of the exact details of how it > works (multiple external memory managers?), but it's a quad Xeon > board by SuperMicro. > > If it's a question of "is there any application that can ever use that > much RAM", we're certainly testing the limits here. :-) We're not > swapping at all with 4GB, but on several occasions we've gotten > close or swapped a few hundred KB. Our two little 2GHz CPUs > are humming right along, but most of the time they're better than > 60% idle. I imagine that if we pushed the CPUs a bit harder or got > hit with a big traffic spike, we'd probably start swapping and want to > start thinking about a system that can handle more RAM. There is a possibility that it could be done but not right now.. There are other things that are higher on the lists. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
