Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
* Tom Samplonius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080219 23:00] 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. The 6-stable (6.3 and beyond) has been in use at Yahoo and other sites for quite some time. > 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. Actually this is incorrect, the kernel can use physical memory outside of its address space as cache, so you can get more than 4GB of cache. > And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems > just the same as i386. It's fine, people are just suggesting that the person upgrade to -stable (not stay at 6.2) and are concerned that reinstalling the machine as amd64 might be too much of a move. -Alfred ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
> Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is > concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would > use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE. To the original poster - does a PAE kernel actually boot on your 16 gig machines ? My problem was that I had tested PAE of 4 gig machines (to avoid the "bit over 3" problem) but when it came down to 16 gig on the Xeons then it wouldnt actually boot :-( -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
Thank you all for your suggestions. I have been trying to push to move to amd64 architecture for all the reasons you all stated. For the record, we tested PAE on one machine, booted the kernel w/ nextboot and it crashed about 15 minutes later. I will consider configuring a dump device to analyze the kernel dumps, but for now we reverted to the original i386 kernel and are likely going to scrap the PAE idea and move to amd64. This was a management decision (obviously) and the people who originally built this box (long before I was there), did not have enough experience or foresight. i was hoping for alternative suggestions to reduce downtime of these boxes, such as recompiling amd64 manually instead of a fresh install. These boxes are just Apache, Mysql, PHP type boxes. Nothing exotic or fancy. Thanks again for your suggestions. I am trying my best to relay the reasoning and rock-solid logic ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ivan Voras Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:35 AM To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM Tom Samplonius wrote: > 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. Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE. > 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. As I understand it, one possible benefit could be to use the memory for disk / file cache. AFAIK the pages are just pages, without distinction where they are mapped, and for example, if you run PostgreSQL, it couldn't use more than 4 GB for its own data (actually closer to 2 GB because of some sysvshm issues) but it will indirectly use the cache. > And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems > just the same as i386. I agree, FreeBSD on amd64 is very stable. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
Tom Samplonius wrote: > 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. Architecturally, it's a nasty kludge. As far as stability on FreeBSD is concerned, my only machine under PAE with 4 GB RAM (without PAE it would use a bit over 3 GB) is very solid on 6-STABLE. > 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. As I understand it, one possible benefit could be to use the memory for disk / file cache. AFAIK the pages are just pages, without distinction where they are mapped, and for example, if you run PostgreSQL, it couldn't use more than 4 GB for its own data (actually closer to 2 GB because of some sysvshm issues) but it will indirectly use the cache. > And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems > just the same as i386. I agree, FreeBSD on amd64 is very stable. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
Kevin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386 > FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb. Several people have already pointed out that you can either run FreeBSD/i386+PAE or FreeBSD/amd64 (64bit). However, there's an important piece of information missing: _Why_ did you install 16 GB of RAM? The answer to that question might give an indication which of the two ways would be best for you. For example, if you need to run a single large application that needs much RAM, then i386+PAE won't help you at all, because you still have a 4 GB address space limit and a 4 GB process size limit. Actually much less than 4 GB because the 32bit address space is shared between kernel and userland. To get rid of the 4 GB limit completely, you must install FreeBSD/amd64. Also, amd64 code is often (but not always) faster than i386 code. My recommendation is that you use amd64, unless there is a specific reason you can't do that, e.g. you depend on a driver or third-party software that won't run on amd64. Then i386+PAE is your only choice, unfortunately. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "The ITU has offered the IETF formal alignment with its corresponding technology, Penguins, but that won't fly." -- RFC 2549 ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:56 AM, Tom Samplonius wrote: And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems just the same as i386. Some poorly written software fails to run properly in 64-bit environment. I have one such package, and my solution was to compile it on a 32-bit box, and copy the binaries over. Works just fine with 32-bit compat enabled on the amd64 kernel. Other than that, the FreeBSD/amd64 has been 100% rock solid for me since 6.0 when I started getting 64-bit boxes. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
> Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more > reliable environment other than PAE? I was faced with a similar problem last autmumn - we had been running 6.2 on a set of servers with 4 gig or RAM, but purchased new servers with 16 gig in them. I experimented with various things - PAE being my initial try, and ended up opting for 7.0 (prerelease) usin amd64. It worked like a charm. Note that I only shifted the OS to amd64 - I still ran my application code as the existing 6.2/i386 binaries. Didn't want to make a drastic shift in the application at the same time. It all ran fine - but our application is staticly linked, so that did make things simpler. Since then I;ve migrated almost everything we have over to amd64 and 7.0 and we are very happy with it - the only machines that havent been moved are those which cannot run in 64 bit mode (two desktops and two older servers). So, I would recommend going with amd64 if you can. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
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]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
- "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. 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. And is there some really stability fear about FreeBSD on x86-64? Seems just the same as i386. > good luck, > -Alfred Tom ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
* Kevin K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080219 14:40] wrote: > I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386 > FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb. > > > > I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE) > in order to see this. I understand this is still considered a Beta > implementation ,and this is a production box. > > > > 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. good luck, -Alfred ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote: > I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386 > FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb. > > > > I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE) > in order to see this. I understand this is still considered a Beta > implementation ,and this is a production box. > > > > Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more > reliable environment other than PAE? If you want to use all the 16GB RAM on that machine then your only options is to use the amd64 version of FreeBSD or i386+PAE. amd64 is likely to work better. (Yes, the amd64 version of FreeBSD should work on your hardware according to the quoted dmesg output.) > > > > Dmesg Output is as follows : > > > > Copyright (c) 1992-2007 The FreeBSD Project. > > Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 > > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. > > FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. > > FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 11:05:30 UTC 2007 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP > > Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 > > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz (3000.13-MHz 686-class CPU) > > Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf64 Stepping = 4 > > > Features=0xbfebfbff ,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,DTS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,PBE> > > Features2=0xe4bd,> > > AMD Features=0x2010 > > AMD Features2=0x1 > > Cores per package: 2 > > Logical CPUs per core: 2 > > real memory = 3489005568 (3327 MB) > > avail memory = 3414196224 (3256 MB) > > ACPI APIC Table: > > FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs > [snip] -- Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:10:17PM -0500, Kevin K wrote: > Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more > reliable environment other than PAE? You have two options, and these are the only two I'm aware of: 1) Run amd64 (64-bit). 2) Run i386 with PAE enabled. I would choose the 64-bit option in your situation. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Dual Core Xeon / i386 install w/ more than 4gb of RAM
I have a box that we recently installed 16GB of RAM on. The box is i386 FreeBSD 6.2. It only recognizes 4gb. I am currently recompiling the kernel to support options PAE (KERNCONF=PAE) in order to see this. I understand this is still considered a Beta implementation ,and this is a production box. Does anyone have any alternative solutions that would provide a more reliable environment other than PAE? Dmesg Output is as follows : Copyright (c) 1992-2007 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD is a registered trademark of The FreeBSD Foundation. FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 11:05:30 UTC 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz (3000.13-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0xf64 Stepping = 4 Features=0xbfebfbff Features2=0xe4bd,> AMD Features=0x2010 AMD Features2=0x1 Cores per package: 2 Logical CPUs per core: 2 real memory = 3489005568 (3327 MB) avail memory = 3414196224 (3256 MB) ACPI APIC Table: FreeBSD/SMP: Multiprocessor System Detected: 4 CPUs cpu0 (BSP): APIC ID: 0 cpu1 (AP): APIC ID: 1 cpu2 (AP): APIC ID: 2 cpu3 (AP): APIC ID: 3 ioapic0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard ioapic1 irqs 24-47 on motherboard kbd1 at kbdmux0 ath_hal: 0.9.17.2 (AR5210, AR5211, AR5212, RF5111, RF5112, RF2413, RF5413) acpi0: on motherboard acpi0: Power Button (fixed) Timecounter "ACPI-fast" frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000 acpi_timer0: <24-bit timer at 3.579545MHz> port 0x1008-0x100b on acpi0 cpu0: on acpi0 acpi_throttle0: on cpu0 cpu1: on acpi0 acpi_throttle1: on cpu1 acpi_throttle1: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle1 attach returned 6 cpu2: on acpi0 acpi_throttle2: on cpu2 acpi_throttle2: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle2 attach returned 6 cpu3: on acpi0 acpi_throttle3: on cpu3 acpi_throttle3: failed to attach P_CNT device_attach: acpi_throttle3 attach returned 6 pcib0: port 0xcf8-0xcff on acpi0 pci0: on pcib0 pcib1: at device 2.0 on pci0 pci1: on pcib1 pcib2: irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci1 pci2: on pcib2 pcib3: irq 16 at device 0.0 on pci2 pci3: on pcib3 pcib4: irq 18 at device 2.0 on pci2 pci4: on pcib4 em0: port 0x2000-0x201f mem 0xd800-0xd801 irq 18 at device 0.0 on pci4 em0: Ethernet address: 00:30:48:8d:e7:8e em1: port 0x2020-0x203f mem 0xd802-0xd803 irq 19 at device 0.1 on pci4 em1: Ethernet address: 00:30:48:8d:e7:8f pcib5: at device 0.3 on pci1 pci5: on pcib5 pci0: at device 8.0 (no driver attached) pcib6: irq 17 at device 28.0 on pci0 pci6: on pcib6 uhci0: port 0x1800-0x181f irq 17 at device 29.0 on pci0 uhci0: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb0: on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci1: port 0x1820-0x183f irq 19 at device 29.1 on pci0 uhci1: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb1: on uhci1 usb1: USB revision 1.0 uhub1: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub1: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci2: port 0x1840-0x185f irq 18 at device 29.2 on pci0 uhci2: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb2: on uhci2 usb2: USB revision 1.0 uhub2: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub2: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered uhci3: port 0x1860-0x187f irq 16 at device 29.3 on pci0 uhci3: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb3: on uhci3 usb3: USB revision 1.0 uhub3: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub3: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered ehci0: mem 0xd850-0xd85003ff irq 17 at device 29.7 on pci0 ehci0: [GIANT-LOCKED] usb4: EHCI version 1.0 usb4: companion controllers, 2 ports each: usb0 usb1 usb2 usb3 usb4: on ehci0 usb4: USB revision 2.0 uhub4: Intel EHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 2.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub4: 8 ports with 8 removable, self powered pcib7: at device 30.0 on pci0 pci7: on pcib7 pci7: at device 1.0 (no driver attached) isab0: at device 31.0 on pci0 isa0: on isab0 atapci0: port 0x1f0-0x1f7,0x3f6,0x170-0x177,0x376,0x1880-0x188f at device 31.1 on pci0 ata0: on atapci0 ata1: on atapci0 atapci1: port 0x18c0-0x18c7,0x1894-0x1897,0x1898-0x189f,0x1890-0x1893,0x18a0-0x18bf mem 0xd8500400-0xd85007ff irq 19 at device 31.2 on pci0 atapci1: AHCI Version 01.10 controller with 6 ports detected ata2: on atapci1 ata3: on atapci1 ata4: on atapci1 ata5: on atapci1 ata6: on atapci1 ata7: on atapci1 pci0: at device 31.3 (no driver attached) acpi_button0: on acpi0 atkbdc0: port 0x60,0x64 irq 1 on acpi0 atkbd0: irq 1 on atkbdc0 kbd0 at atkbd0 atkbd0: [GIANT-LOCKED] psm0: irq 12 on atkbdc0 psm0: [GIANT-LOCKED] psm0: model IntelliMouse Explorer, device ID 4 sio0: <16550A-compatible COM port> port 0x3f8-0x3ff irq 4 flags 0x10 on acpi0
