On Thu 2013-01-31 23:38:27, Phil Turmel wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> > [trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
>
> Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
> multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way. U
On 01/31/2013 10:13 PM, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> [trim /] Does not that prove that PAE is broken?
Please, Paul, take *yes* for an answer. It is broken. You've received
multiple dissertations on why it is going to stay that way. Unless you
fix it yourself, and everyone seems to be polit
Dear Ben,
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
>>> No it isn't.
>> Could I please ask you to expand on that?
>
> I already did, a few messages back.
OK, thanks. Noting however that fewer than those back, I said:
... PAE with any RAM fails the "sleep test":
n=0; while [ $n -lt 33000 ]; do
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 13:12 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> >> PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> Could I please ask you to expand on that?
I already did, a few messages back.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Everything should be made as simple as possib
Dear Ben,
>> PAE is broken for any amount of RAM.
>
> No it isn't.
Could I please ask you to expand on that?
Thanks, Paul
Paul Szabo p...@maths.usyd.edu.au http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/psz/
School of Mathematics and Statistics University of SydneyAustralia
--
To unsubscribe from thi
On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 10:06 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> > Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
> > selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with >16GB RAM and
> > a capable processor.
>
> Don't you mean change to amd64 for
Dear Ben,
> Based on your experience I might propose to change the automatic kernel
> selection for i386 so that we use 'amd64' on a system with >16GB RAM and
> a capable processor.
Don't you mean change to amd64 for >4GB (or any RAM), never using PAE?
PAE is broken for any amount of RAM. More pr
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 20:07 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> Thanks for the repeated explanations.
>
> > PAE was a stop-gap ...
> > ... [PAE] completely untenable.
>
> Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
> work? Maybe you should have had
Dear Ben,
Thanks for the repeated explanations.
> PAE was a stop-gap ...
> ... [PAE] completely untenable.
Is this a good time to withdraw PAE, to tell the world that it does not
work? Maybe you should have had such comments in the code.
Seems that amd64 now works "somewhat": on Debian the linu
On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 06:40 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Pavel and Dave,
>
> > The assertion was that 4GB with no PAE passed a forkbomb test (ooming)
> > while 4GB of RAM with PAE hung, thus _PAE_ is broken.
>
> Yes, PAE is broken. Still, maybe the above needs slight correction:
On Tue, 2013-01-15 at 07:36 +1100, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
> Dear Dave,
>
> >> Seems that any i386 PAE machine will go OOM just by running a few
> >> processes. To reproduce:
> >> sh -c 'n=0; while [ $n -lt 1 ]; do sleep 600 & ((n=n+1)); done'
> >> ...
> > I think what you're seeing
11 matches
Mail list logo
