Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
I stand corrected. I knew everyone would set me straight :-) Thanks to all who set me back on the path of righteousness! ;-) Terry Greg Meyer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:50 pm, Terry Sheltra wrote: If I recall correctly, you need to purchase the server version of Mandrake. That version will allow memory to be used higher than 1 GB. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be more than happy to set me straight. ;-) You are correct in that you need the kernel that was intended for servers, but this kernel is included in 9.0 download edition and teh package name if I recall is kernel-enterprise. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W9yWGu5uuMFlL5MRAguKAJ0Sr6s+esnoPJmM36PlNRTY27AXdwCcD0m5 0rEcD7wQMcH0kYmnvzUtwSI= =cbcY -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com -- Terry Sheltra PC Technician/Asst. Network Administrator University of Virginia School of Architecture 434.982.3047 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Registered Linux User #218330 This email was composed on a 100% Microsoft-free PC Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 06:43 pm, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: Pretty soon all the PCs and laptops will need to have more than 1GB of RAM. What is happening here is probably an early signal for the kernel developers to revamp memory management. Seedkum The linux-kernel people are constantly 'revamping' the kernel. But in order to address memory over about 900 MB's, with a 32 bit system, there's a substantial performance hit to be paid. Solution is to provide a 'desktop' kernel, so that those systems don't suffer the performance hit. While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. Thanx Tom, This suggests that the performance penalty is brought about because of hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture) and not artificially introduced by sloppy memory management software. This suggests that some register somewhere in the CPU is not full 32 bits long. I thought 32 bits of address give 4G of address space and not 1G. Maybe AMD should make 32 bit CPUs address the full 4G before going to 64 bit CPUs. Seedkum Well, you're straining the limits of my ability to explain it further ... mainly cause I dunno either ;) I will say it's not so much hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture), but has more to do with mathematics... in the realm of hexadecimal numbers, and 2's complements, 32 things taken so many ways (permutations and combinations). It's only been a few years since the 'other OS' even graduated from 16 bit computing, and as I understand M$ isn't there yet. Mostly due to tryin to support legacy applications. Linux has always been capable and willin to re-write software. There's been proprietary UN*X OS's and applications that have long been 64 bit capable. Hardware design isn't the big problem, user non-acceptance of change, and willing acceptance of hardware is probly the bigger factor. Many might remember the 2000 hoopla that all computers would start messin up due to not bein able to recognize the difference between 1900 and 2000 dates. My brief self taught foray into programming (C, C++) at least aquainted me with the fact that dates were stored as code numbers (even on M$/DOS OS's) and the real limitation was around 2037 when 32 bit systems would barf on higher numbers than 32 bit can address. The 32 bit mathematical limit just runs out of possible numbers in row and column (matrix) addressing. Same goes for memory arrays (ram), altho there are some kludges that can be employed to get 32 bit kernels further. BUT, that's where the performance hit comes in. So, at least in my understanding, it's not an OS or user accepted hardware limit, as much as it's just the axioms of mathematics at base 16 (hexidecimal), 2's compliment, with just 32 bits to work with. BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:31 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized kernels for them. IIRC, the kernels were ready before the systems were. OTOH, before you'll see 64 bit desktops systems, 512 mb of ram will still be overkill. Thanx Tom, This suggests that the performance penalty is brought about because of hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture) and not artificially introduced by sloppy memory management software. This suggests that some register somewhere in the CPU is not full 32 bits long. I thought 32 bits of address give 4G of address space and not 1G. Maybe AMD should make 32 bit CPUs address the full 4G before going to 64 bit CPUs. Seedkum Well, you're straining the limits of my ability to explain it further ... mainly cause I dunno either ;) I will say it's not so much hardware limitations (i.e. CPU architecture), but has more to do with mathematics... in the realm of hexadecimal numbers, and 2's complements, 32 things taken so many ways (permutations and combinations). It's only been a few years since the 'other OS' even graduated from 16 bit computing, and as I understand M$ isn't there yet. Mostly due to tryin to support legacy applications. Linux has always been capable and willin to re-write software. There's been proprietary UN*X OS's and applications that have long been 64 bit capable. Hardware design isn't the big problem, user non-acceptance of change, and willing acceptance of hardware is probly the bigger factor. Many might remember the 2000 hoopla that all computers would start messin up due to not bein able to recognize the difference between 1900 and 2000 dates. My brief self taught foray into programming (C, C++) at least aquainted me with the fact that dates were stored as code numbers (even on M$/DOS OS's) and the real limitation was around 2037 when 32 bit systems would barf on higher numbers than 32 bit can address. The 32 bit mathematical limit just runs out of possible numbers in row and column (matrix) addressing. Same goes for memory arrays (ram), altho there are some kludges that can be employed to get 32 bit kernels further. BUT, that's where the performance hit comes in. So, at least in my understanding, it's not an OS or user accepted hardware limit, as much as it's just the axioms of mathematics at base 16 (hexidecimal), 2's compliment, with just 32 bits to work with. BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. Yep 1G requires 30 bits (plus a sign bit) to address properly.. since address arithmetic should be unsigned, this represents the easiest way to implement address arithmetic using 32-bit signed arithmetic registers. 2G is as high as one is likely to go with 32-bit addressing using signed arithmetic in the registers, unsigned comes extra, unless the hardware also supports unsigned arithmetic (the C compiler supports unsigned arith whether the architecture does or not, which means subroutines to add subtract multiply and divide unsigned 32 bit numbers if the architecture does not offer such arithmetic) C compilers have target memory models as well, so that the compile is efficient for the expected runtime environment. This is where the sizing of 32-bit CPU kernels comes into play as well as the optimizations of the kernel itself. Now the more recent Windows systems supposedly support a file size of 2 Terabytes... I think that is 2 to the power 41 bytes which indicates a 41 bit address if unsigned and 42 if signed. 64-bit linices generally address either 8 or 16 exabytes (2 to the power 63 or 64 bytes), and file sizes are at least that large, potentially. One compiler, xbasic, which works on any 386 using windows or linux with X, actually offers a 64bit signed fixed-point data type. Some interpreters offer arbitrary number sizes in fixed point (like the Python BIG=1L). Limits are limits only because there are performance hits associated with size, given the architectures available. Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
Fred Schroeder wrote: Thanks for all of the replys, guess I will try to roll my own, sure hope I don't screw this up!! you will seldom screw up if you always back up before you install or modify anything that is working. 'things' will screw up enough on their own. peace out. tc,hago. g . -- think green... save a tree, save a life, save time, save bandwidth, save storage. send email... text/plain - disable pgp/gpg/geek code attachments =+= if you are proud to be an american, then buy made in america. Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 03:33 pm, civileme wrote: On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:31 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Wednesday February 26 2003 11:23 am, Seedkum Aladeem wrote: While there's already 64 bit production machines, that use gigs of ram, there's also already Linux performance optimized [Deleted] just 32 bits to work with. BTW, I believe filesystems are also governed by the same mathematical laws and bits ;) I'm mostly doin some educated guessing about all the above, Civileme, Juan, Warly, or Todd probly knows. Yep 1G requires 30 bits (plus a sign bit) to address properly.. since address arithmetic should be unsigned, this represents the easiest way to implement address arithmetic using 32-bit signed arithmetic registers. 2G is as high as one is likely to go with 32-bit addressing using signed arithmetic in the registers, unsigned comes extra, unless the hardware also supports unsigned arithmetic (the C compiler supports unsigned arith whether the architecture does or not, which means subroutines to add subtract multiply and divide unsigned 32 bit numbers if the architecture does not offer such arithmetic) C compilers have target memory models as well, so that the compile is efficient for the expected runtime environment. This is where the sizing of 32-bit CPU kernels comes into play as well as the optimizations of the kernel itself. Now the more recent Windows systems supposedly support a file size of 2 Terabytes... I think that is 2 to the power 41 bytes which indicates a 41 bit address if unsigned and 42 if signed. 64-bit linices generally address either 8 or 16 exabytes (2 to the power 63 or 64 bytes), and file sizes are at least that large, potentially. One compiler, xbasic, which works on any 386 using windows or linux with X, actually offers a 64bit signed fixed-point data type. Some interpreters offer arbitrary number sizes in fixed point (like the Python BIG=1L). Limits are limits only because there are performance hits associated with size, given the architectures available. Civileme As suspected, the memory management performance penalty is due to architectural limitations and not sloppy software. Because the registers used for address employ signed ariithmetic, using more higher order bits or increasing the size of the registers would introduce compatibility issues. AMD will not do that. Seedkum Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:50 pm, Terry Sheltra wrote: If I recall correctly, you need to purchase the server version of Mandrake. That version will allow memory to be used higher than 1 GB. Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be more than happy to set me straight. ;-) You are correct in that you need the kernel that was intended for servers, but this kernel is included in 9.0 download edition and teh package name if I recall is kernel-enterprise. - -- Greg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+W9yWGu5uuMFlL5MRAguKAJ0Sr6s+esnoPJmM36PlNRTY27AXdwCcD0m5 0rEcD7wQMcH0kYmnvzUtwSI= =cbcY -END PGP SIGNATURE- Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
In reply to Anne's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:19:29 +: On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:50 pm, Paul wrote: * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line append=mem=196M to the kernel-line. Paul - I have mem=nopentium in my append line. Can this take the mem=512M at the same time? Hi Anne, Yes. That would make it append=mem=512M nopentium You have to put it all in 1 line, there can only be 1 append line per Lilo option. Paul -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. http://nlpagan.net - Linux by Mandrake - Sylpheed by Hiro Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 9:11 pm, Paul wrote: In reply to Anne's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:19:29 +: On Tuesday 25 Feb 2003 7:50 pm, Paul wrote: * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line append=mem=196M to the kernel-line. Paul - I have mem=nopentium in my append line. Can this take the mem=512M at the same time? Hi Anne, Yes. That would make it append=mem=512M nopentium You have to put it all in 1 line, there can only be 1 append line per Lilo option. Paul Thanks, Paul. I'll do that. Anne -- Registered Linux User No.293302 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:50, Paul wrote: In reply to Fred's mail, d.d. Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:44:17 -0600: Hi, I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? Hi Fred, Here a tip directly from my Linux page (saves me a lot of typing!) * When booting, Linux does not see all physically installed memory: e.g. you have 196 megs of RAM and linux only 'sees' 64Megs. As root, you need to edit /etc/lilo.conf. Add the line append=mem=196M to the kernel-line. After that run lilo to make the change known to the boot loader (use lilo -v to make lilo tell some more about what it does). It still is not right? Set the amount of megs down by 1 or 2 in lilo.conf through the same procedure. Sometimes that helps. Apparently here are some mainboards that gobble up some installed RAM for use with video cards. Paul -- I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it. http://nlpagan.net - Linux by Mandrake - Sylpheed by Hiro Not only that, but that standard kernel won't recognise more than 1 GB of RAM. You need to install the enterprise kernel. Its on the first cd: kernel-enterprise-2.4.19.16mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm but note that there was a security update on the kernel packages 05 February 2003 - now using kernel-enterprise-2.4.19.24mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm. A word of warning: if you have a nvidia graphics card and intend to use the nvidia drivers, you _may_ not get them working with the enterprise kernel, even though there are nvidia drivers specifically for the enterprise kernel. I have tried nvidia's enterprise, source and tarball drivers, as well as Mandrake Club's enterprise drivers and Ranger's drivers all to no avail. And yet a separate installation with the standard kernel works with absolutely no probs. Its difficult to find help with this matter because very few people use the enterprise kernel. I've given up looking for a solution. Cheers Sharrea -- The box said Requires Windows 95 or better so I installed Linux -- Mandrake Linux 9.0 Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: Hi, I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
Tom you make a great point. I run mandrake linux with 256 megs of PC 133 Ram on an Athlon 1600 XP with no problems. So Fred sell all your 512 sticks and go get 256 and you will be fine. Kenneth E. Spress [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interested in a home based buisness? Go Shopping without leaving your house http://www.acnmall.com/sirduron Lastly would you be interested in saving money on products and services you already use if so please contact me. - Original Message - From: Tom Brinkman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: [newbie] Memory limit? On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: Hi, I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) -- Tom Brinkman Corpus Christi, Texas Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 10:44 am, Fred Schroeder wrote: Hi, I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? TIA, Fred You need to change more than a setting OPen a terminal $ su password: (your rootpassword) # urpmi kernel-enterprise # exit Now boot with kernel-enterprise and you will see the extra memory The kernel is compiled specifically for a certain memory model (up to 1G) and for others you need other compiles. Kernel-enterprise covers 1G-64G Civileme Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Re: [newbie] Memory limit?
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:07 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote: On Tuesday February 25 2003 01:44 pm, Fred Schroeder wrote: Hi, I have a Mandrake 9.0 system, in the machine I have put three 512Meg chips, so it should have 1,536Meg of Ram. But in the system monitor, it only shows 884Meg. What is up? When the machine boots, it says it has 1572864 memory, so I think the machine sees the memory, but for some reason Linux is not seeing it all. Do I need to change some setting on my system? You need to either, install the 'enterprise' kernel, or compile your existing kernel from source and config the 'high memory' option. There's good reason why this is not in the 'regular' kernel. Kernel memory management above 1 gig is slower. If you don't just have to have 1.5 gigs of ram (video editing?), you'd be better off leaving the regular kernel as is. Yes, the enterprise kernel will see all your ram with no problem, but your system will be slower. Probly be a better idea to take one of those 512mb sticks out and sell it ;) Pretty soon all the PCs and laptops will need to have more than 1GB of RAM. What is happening here is probably an early signal for the kernel developers to revamp memory management. Seedkum Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
