Julian Elischer wrote:
> > Are you actually going ahead with the PAE support?
> >
> > Will this be a compile-time option, so that it can be
> > turned off?
> >
> > I considered doing the same, about 4 months ago but it's not
> > like I could use the additional memory for mbufs, sockets, or
> > oth
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > No. I have a machine with 6GB in it waiting for finishing the PAE
> > tweaks.
>
> Are you actually going ahead with the PAE support?
>
> Will this be a compile-time option, so that it can be
> turned off?
>
> I considered doin
On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > No. I have a machine with 6GB in it waiting for finishing the PAE
> > tweaks.
>
> Are you actually going ahead with the PAE support?
>
> Will this be a compile-time option, so that it can be
> turned off?
It better be because the t
Peter Wemm wrote:
> No. I have a machine with 6GB in it waiting for finishing the PAE
> tweaks.
Are you actually going ahead with the PAE support?
Will this be a compile-time option, so that it can be
turned off?
I considered doing the same, about 4 months ago but it's not
like I could use the
:> Yes, and the buffer cache determines how much dirty file-backed data
:> (via write() or mmap()) the system is allowed to accumulate before
:> it forces it out, which should probably be the greater concern here.
:
:How hard would it be to allow dirty data in the file
:cache, without
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> : Uh, I don't think you understand what this limit is about. It's
> :essentially the limit on the amount of filesystem directory data that
> :can be cached. It does not limit the amount of file data that can
> :be cached - that is only limited by the am
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Matt Dillon wrote:
> In FreeBSD land the use-case would simply be our physical-backed-shared-
> memory feature. We could implement the 8-byte MMU extensions in the
> PMAP code as a kernrel option to be able to access ram > 4GB without
> having to change anyth
:
:>There are two things I would like to commit for the release:
:>
:> - I would like to cap the SWAPMETA zone reservation to 70MB,
:>which allows us to manage a maximum of 29GB worth of swapped
:>out data.
:>
:>This is plenty and saves us 94MB of KVM which is rou
:
:David Greenman wrote:
:>
:> > - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB,
:> > giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to
:> > another 30,000 or so nmbclusters.
:>
:>That also seems like overkill for the vast majority of systems.
:
:
:
:>David Greenman wrote:
:>>
:>> > - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB,
:>> > giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to
:>> > another 30,000 or so nmbclusters.
:>>
:>>That also seems like overkill for the vast majority of syste
> >> > - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB,
> >> > giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to
> >> > another 30,000 or so nmbclusters.
> >>
> >>That also seems like overkill for the vast majority of systems.
> >
> >But probably not
> - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB,
> giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to
> another 30,000 or so nmbclusters.
I know of many scientific applications that were written with low-memory
machines in mind, which use use lots of di
>David Greenman wrote:
>>
>> > - I would like to cap the size of the buffer cache at 200MB,
>> > giving us another 70MB or so of KVM which is equivalent to
>> > another 30,000 or so nmbclusters.
>>
>>That also seems like overkill for the vast majority of systems.
>
>But
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 08:59:25PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 08:49:55AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> > - I would like to cap the SWAPMETA zone reservation to 70MB,
> > which allows us to manage a maximum of 29GB worth of swapped
> > out data.
>
> Not to i
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 06:34:43PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> > No. I have a machine with 6GB in it waiting for finishing the PAE
> > tweaks.
> >
> > Intel ppro, pentium2 and pentium3 has a maximum RAM of 64GB. Pentium4 may
> > have more but I have not c
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 06:34:43PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> No. I have a machine with 6GB in it waiting for finishing the PAE
> tweaks.
>
> Intel ppro, pentium2 and pentium3 has a maximum RAM of 64GB. Pentium4 may
> have more but I have not checked.
It was my understanding from a previous thr
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 08:49:55AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> > - I would like to cap the SWAPMETA zone reservation to 70MB,
> > which allows us to manage a maximum of 29GB worth of swapped
> > out data.
>
> Not to introduce machine dependancy, but on Intel
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 08:49:55AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
> - I would like to cap the SWAPMETA zone reservation to 70MB,
> which allows us to manage a maximum of 29GB worth of swapped
> out data.
Not to introduce machine dependancy, but on Intel max ram is 4GB,
so it seem
>There are two things I would like to commit for the release:
>
> - I would like to cap the SWAPMETA zone reservation to 70MB,
> which allows us to manage a maximum of 29GB worth of swapped
> out data.
>
> This is plenty and saves us 94MB of KVM which is roughly
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
