SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2008

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Summerfield <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
John Summerfield <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 20 Jan 2008 08:04:56 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
markaoki wrote:
> I imagine SL5's max x86 per-process virtual address space is now about 3gb,
> vs. SL4.x's approx. 4gb, due to hugemem kernel being dropped from the RHEL 5
> distribution.

I imagine you're wrong. I expect the base kernel does what the kernel+ 
variants have done in the past.

> 
> If thats the case...would 64-bit SL5 allow more per-process memory? 

I expect you're right:-) I understand it's also quicker.

Especially if you add even more RAM. I've discovered one of my desktop 
supports 2 Gbyte DDR2, so it might get some on the "chuck 1 add 4" plan. 
Wouldn't work at all well with IA32.

-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[log in to unmask]  [log in to unmask]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2