Hello Larry at all

your question led me to make a brief search about the hugemen and it 
appears that the kernel has some tricks, not only to be used in systems 
with more than 16GB of ram. He also supports a 4GB user space, a 
departure from the 3GB  that are set in default configuration. He also 
supporting systems with 64GB, and I don't know if it is the same 
configuration that allows use with systems with 16GB. It has taken me to 
try see the default kernel configuration, but not succeeded. To do that 
I normally do zcat /proc/congi.gz, but it seems the defautl kernel is 
not compiled with the option "kernel. Config support".

This leads me to another help request. Someone know how I can get the 
.config of default and hugemem kernel? to study the differences?

Thank you now.
Eduardo Bach

P. Larry Nelson escreveu:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Access disc too slow
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 22:05:11 +0100 (BST)
> From: Rhys Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Eduardo Bach <[log in to unmask]>
> CC: [log in to unmask], Marco André Ferreira Dias 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> References: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Hi Eduardo,
>
> Try running kernel-hugemem instead of the normal kernel, I recently
> had similar problems to you which were fixed by running
> kernel-hugemem.
>
> I upgraded the RAM in a machine from 2gb to 4gb and it ran really
> slowly with the normal kernel, but fine with kernel-hugemem
>
> yum install kernel-hugemem
>
> rebboot and pick kernel-hugmem on boot.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Rhys
>
> -------------------------------------
> Starting a new thread here...
>
> Speaking of kernel-hugemem, I'm now curious - I've seen the term
> before but never gave it much thought, thinking it must be for
> those huge servers with 16 Gbytes or more of ram.
>
> Rhys comment about using kernel-hugemem on a 4GB system has now
> prompted me to ask at what point does one go or should go (or
> need to go) to the hugemem kernel?  We have a couple of systems
> at 4GB and will probably get more systems with even more memory.
>
> And what were your metrics for slow running vs. fine running?
>
> Thanks!
> - Larry