* Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080219 23:00] wrote:
>
> - "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
> > more
> > > reliable environment other than PAE?
> >
> > Besideds PAE some people have mentioned ru
> Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is
> concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would
> use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE.
To the original poster - does a PAE kernel actually boot on your
16 gig machines ? My problem was t
and rock-solid logic ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan Voras
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:35 AM
To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
Tom Samplonius wrote:
> Is PAE really that stable? I thought it was fairly unpolished, mainly
> because PAE is seen as a weak kludge implemented by Intel because they all
> thought we would all be using Itanium's by now. Intel reversed their folly
> pretty quickly, adopted the x86-64 extens
Kevin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
> FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
Several people have already pointed out that you can either
run FreeBSD/i386+PAE or FreeBSD/amd64 (64bit).
However, there's an important piece of i
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64?
Seems just the same as i386.
Some poorly written software fails to run properly in 64-bit
environment. I have one such package, and my solution was to compile
it on a 32
> Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more
> reliable environment other than PAE?
I was faced with a similar problem last autmumn - we had been running 6.2
on a set of servers with 4 gig or RAM, but purchased new servers with
16 gig in them. I experimented with various
Tom Samplonius wrote:
- "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
more
reliable environment other than PAE?
Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable
- "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
> more
> > reliable environment other than PAE?
>
> Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
>
> One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable (6.
* Kevin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080219 14:40] wrote:
> I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
> FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
>
>
>
> I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE)
> in order to see this. I understand this is s
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote:
> I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386
> FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb.
>
>
>
> I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE)
> in order to see this. I understand this
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote:
> Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more
> reliable environment other than PAE?
You have two options, and these are the only two I'm aware of:
1) Run amd64 (64-bit).
2) Run i386 with PAE enabled.
I would choos
12 matches
Mail list logo
