u're off wrong. ;-)
it's not a bug.
the kernel can only access approx 860mb directly.
anything above that, and the memory needs to be accessed differently for the
total amount of memory, using translation tables.
this leads to a performance hit as every memory access takes around 3 reads
or
On Friday 24 October 2003 02:36, Tom Brinkman wrote:
But (just to clarify things), does it perform better with 512
than 1024 ? Or does a person just not need that much?
Not for a desktop. Only servers handling web services and lot'sa
lot'sa users, or a sound/video studio. So unless
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 07:41 pm, Terence J. Golightly wrote:
You'll need to
do the same, or add mem=860Mto your lilo append line
for the kernel you're usin.
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using all
On Thursday 23 October 2003 15:45, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using all 1024MB's.
The memory management needed to address 1GB or more of ram imposes a
performance hit.
Does that mean I'm
On Thursday 23 October 2003 11:40 am, Martin L. Johansen wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2003 15:45, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using all
1024MB's. The memory management needed to address 1GB
On Thursday 23 October 2003 19:42, Tom Brinkman wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2003 11:40 am, Martin L. Johansen wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2003 15:45, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using
On Thursday 23 October 2003 01:42 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Does that mean I'm actually better off using less than 1Gig of
RAM ?
Yes. 99% of users don't even need 512MB
I've got 512 of DDR here and AFAIK, I've -never- hit swap...so I'd have to
agree...unless you're doing something
On Thursday 23 October 2003 21:54, Ronald J. Hall wrote:
On Thursday 23 October 2003 01:42 pm, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Does that mean I'm actually better off using less than 1Gig of
RAM ?
Yes. 99% of users don't even need 512MB
I've got 512 of DDR here and AFAIK, I've -never- hit
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 09:45, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using all 1024MB's.
The memory management needed to address 1GB or more of ram imposes a
performance hit.
Tom,
I added mem=860 to
On Thursday 23 October 2003 05:16 pm, Terence J. Golightly wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 09:45, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Then I'm using only 860M of ram and not all 1024, right?
Yes, but the performance will be better than using all
1024MB's. The memory management needed to address 1GB or
On Thursday 23 October 2003 12:45 pm, Martin L. Johansen wrote:
Does that mean I'm actually better off using less than 1Gig
of RAM ?
Yes. 99% of users don't even need 512MB
But (just to clarify things), does it perform better with 512
than 1024 ? Or does a person just not need
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 10:06 pm, Terence J. Golightly wrote:
Tom/List,
I bought the memory according to a newer post to you sent (I
can't find it :( ). Got the Two 512 MB sticks in the mail and
stuck them both in (using proper static aviodance procedure) and
tested.
Barefoot on a
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 16:54, Tom Brinkman wrote:
snip
Barefoot on a tile floor is my method ;) If your not familiar
with bios ram timing options, set the ram to auto or bios defaults.
Cas 3, precharge 3, banking disabled are the safest (but slowest)
settings.
Memtest gave me errors
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 05:15 pm, Terence J. Golightly wrote:
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 16:54, Tom Brinkman wrote:
snip
Barefoot on a tile floor is my method ;) If your not
familiar with bios ram timing options, set the ram to auto or
bios defaults. Cas 3, precharge 3, banking
On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 18:36, Tom Brinkman wrote:
Snip snip snip
But, I took some precautions. First I d/l'd a 1 GB ram
capable kernel (2.4.22-18mdk-i686-up-4GB) an installed it.
I'll check on my Mdk cds. Would I be able to urpmi it?
You don't mention versions. 9.2 should
Tom/List,
I bought the memory according to a newer post to you sent (I can't find
it :( ). Got the Two 512 MB sticks in the mail and stuck them both in
(using proper static aviodance procedure) and tested. Memtest gave me
errors in the five figure area. I shutdown and tested each stick
16 matches
Mail list logo
