PDA

View Full Version : 8GB memory - How to utilize it? (Several questions)


helam
02-14-2010, 11:23 PM
Actually, I have a several questions:
a) Can I use 8GB in 32 bit kernel?

b) If not, how to recompile kernel only to change one feature - ability to use 8GB memory.

c) 64 bit kernel / system - are there any problems to use it with 32 bit applications like as Skype, Adobe Flash, Java (I know about 64 bit, but our government websites are 32 bit)?

d) Can I use 32 bit windows drivers under ndiswrapper (or what name is) to get my hardware functioned?

NaX
02-19-2010, 06:02 AM
I have never done this before, and I donít know about your driver questions.
But this should be what you looking for.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ker ... onfig.html (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html) - 8.6.1 Large Memory Configurations (PAE)

http://finebushpeople.net/freebsd/build ... stall-disk (http://finebushpeople.net/freebsd/building-PAE-install-disk) - Compiling a FreeBSD PAE kernel

helam
02-19-2010, 05:07 PM
I have never done this before, and I donít know about your driver questions.
But this should be what you looking for.

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/ker ... onfig.html (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/kernelconfig-config.html) - 8.6.1 Large Memory Configurations (PAE)

http://finebushpeople.net/freebsd/build ... stall-disk (http://finebushpeople.net/freebsd/building-PAE-install-disk) - Compiling a FreeBSD PAE kernel
Thank you.
It's pity, that PC-BSD guys not do it standard way, there a lot computers with 36bit (64GB memory top) processors and 8-16 GB memory on the market.

- To use 64 bit if you don't have real, REAL 64bit processor and at least 64GB memory (plus full 100 % support from software vendors ALL real commercial software) I think, at least, it is an unreasoned,unreasoned decision.

TerryP
02-25-2010, 02:40 AM
If you want to use large quantities of memory (more then 32-bit kernels can handle without PAE), then you should use a 64-bit processor and OS.

helam
02-25-2010, 05:27 PM
If you want to use large quantities of memory (more then 32-bit kernels can handle without PAE), then you should use a 64-bit processor and OS.

IA64, you mean? Because all others are 36 bit, not 64 bit (registers).
And I do not have 64 gb memroy to work in comfort with 64 bit processors too...

This is wrong way! It's the same way like microsoft offers , change hardware, waste money, and you can use it what we offer to....

Simple question is why ? for what ? what is a purpose?
The gold answer is if it works do not touch it.

What I have now and for at least 5 years - 36bit processor (Intel), 4x2GB RAM and this hardware must work with 32 bit software -because motherboard does not recognised more than 8GB RAM.
So, I can use it my RAM for virtualization and video editing...

Fatmice
02-25-2010, 05:46 PM
36 bit? Can I have your computer? Please? You have quite a system!

TerryP
02-25-2010, 09:21 PM
By 64-bit processor, I mean a processor with a 64-bit parts that matter; in this case, only AMD64/Intel 64 are applicable, as while FreeBSD runs under IA64, PC-BSD does not support it. PAE is also not the best bucket of bolts the FreeBSD kernel offers, and IMHO is only a stop gap suitable for specailised usage.


AMD64 inherits problems from 32, 16, and 8 bit Intel processors, because of the need for compatibility (read why practically no one uses IA64 on the desktop). One could argue that modern AMD64/Intel 64 chips are less of 'real' 64-bit processors, then Intels Itanium (formally IA64!), but that implementation detail is a moot point at this stage in time. Until the need for addressable memory comes closer to data sets in an Arthur C. Clarke novelp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3001:_The_Final_Odyssey), problems are unlikely, and will likely be side stepped around if the architecture survives long enough (ugh) to need doing so, plus the present chips will be in the history books by then.

The AMD64/Intel 64 chips are not 36-Bit, and the x86_32 chips are not truely 36 bit.


need-memory-p 16EB? => NIL.


For the desktop market, most chips made these days are as 64-bit as anyone will likely need in the next 20 years.

Intel "36-bit" processors as you are referring to, have 32-bit virtual (logical) addressing and 36-bit physical addressing, which increases the amount of memory the machine can physically screw with; this has been the case for a *long* time. For all practical intents and purposes the processor is still a 32-bit pile. Tricks are used to enable it to access > 4GB of memory without *properly* giving up the 32-bit model. Programming the darn thing reflects that.


Or to put it mildly and equally out of context as you have, just because parts of your processor work with 128-bits, does not mean your computer can benefit from cramming more RAM in it ^_^.




If you really want a real performance boost, use a 64-bit system, software written for it, and large quantities of memory. In the 32-bit world, I have generally found that a more powerful processor is often a better investment then pushing architectural limits on memory. Like wise I've found many programmers who don't understand the bloody type system.



So if you want a few dozen gigs of RAM, and performance matters, you should benchmark 32-bit, 32-bit PAE, and 64-bit setups, with varying levels of memory and processor, until you find one that works best. Of course doing that is expensive.