Tom Samplonius wrote:
----- "Alfred Perlstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a
more
reliable environment other than PAE?
Besideds PAE some people have mentioned running an amd64 system.
One thing to consider is that PAE in 6-stable (6.3 and beyond)
is considered very stable, so if you can't make the jump to amd64
system because you'd have to recompile too much, you might have luck
updating sources to 6-stable and trying that kernel, then installing
6.3 userland.
Is PAE really that stable? I thought it was fairly unpolished, mainly
because PAE is seen as a weak kludge implemented by Intel because they all
thought we would all be using Itanium's by now. Intel reversed their folly
pretty quickly, adopted the x86-64 extensions as-is from AMD, and pushed them
onto every piece of silicon they make.
Enough people run PAE without issue that there's a pretty good chance it
will run for you too. Some drivers were never adapted to work with PAE
so hardware support is a smaller subset than regular i386.
I also really don't know how anyone would properly use 16GB of RAM under PAE
anyways? Each process is going to limited to just under 4GB. The kernel
memory space can't be bigger than 4GB either, so forget about a huge disk cache.
If you have many moderate-sized processes then PAE can be a reasonable fit.
And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems just
the same as i386.
No stability issues in general.
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
