Re: -mmX 4G patches feedback

[Eric Whiting]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 10:36:58AM -0600, Eric Whiting wrote:
> > The 4G/4G patch is still useful for me -- although 64bit linux (x86_64) is the
> > best 'real' long-term solution to large memory jobs.
> 
> what's your primary limitation? physical memory or virtual address
> space? if it's physical memory go with 2.6-aa and it'll work fine up to
> 32G boxes included at full cpu performance.

4G of virtual address is what we need. Virtual address space is why the -mmX
4G/4G patches are useful. In this application it is single processes (usually
running one at a time) that need more than 3G of RAM. 
 
> if it's virtual address space and you've not much more than 4G of ram
> 3.5:1.5 usually works fine, and againt you'll run at full cpu
> performance.

3.5:1.5 appears to be a 2.4.x kernel patch only right?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/