The Real Slim Shady wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:04:15 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
>
>
>>>> Hi, I have 2 Gb of memory in my server but can only use 1 of them
>>>> today.
>>>>
>>> Yes, but may I suggest you to switch to AMD64 instead?
>>
>> I believe a recompile is required for the kernel to be able to address
>> ''large'' amounts of RAM (>1GB) regardless of the CPU used. So I don't
>> see how your advice is helpful, particularly since the OP already has his
>> hardware.
> You actually need to recompile for more than 1G ram. However I have no
> evidence of kernel's behavior for more than 1G under x86. The fact that
> one has to recompile in this case sound highly suspicious about possible
> problems.
>
>

I can't decide if you are being a Troll or are just too lazy to keep up with
developments.

The ability to use more than 1 GB RAM has been around for some while. RH
started shipping alternative kernels with it enabled around RH 8 AIR. It
has been used on a number of hosts running busy mail servers.

I think the majority of problems have been ironed out.

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

pgp trash troll delete

Hicks, Alan
188 Shady Dale Dr
Lizella, GA 31052
478-935-8132

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> trolled:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, The Real Slim Shady dared to utter,
>> You actually need to recompile for more than 1G ram. However I have no
>> evidence of kernel's behavior for more than 1G under x86. The fact that
>> one has to recompile in this case sound highly suspicious about possible
>> problems.
>
> If you have no idea what the hell you're talking about keep your mouth
> shut. The linux kernel has options for how much RAM is addressable. The
> default config for Slackware kernels doesn't include BIGMEM which
> allows 32-bit processors to address up to 4 GB of RAM.
>
>> However since the OP clearly needs a lot of memory, and amd64 is no more
>> expensive than a 32 bit solution, I would think he would only have
>> advantages of switching on this platform.
>
> AMD64 is more expensive than 32-bit x86 if you've already bought the
> 32-bit box. GAFC.
>
>> Not to mention it's quite faster in 64 bit mode.
>
> Slackware ain't compiled in 64-bits.
>
> - --
> It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
> Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
> Ecclesiastes 7:5
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBnUf3lKR45I6cfKARAoWxAJ96YZ9NyOGkLnMQyAmAzN omrR/AwQCcD17s
> mKNzoNi3x4AeWU70YVh1FH8=
> =Us80
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:06:24 +0000, Keith Matthews wrote:

> The Real Slim Shady wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:04:15 -0800, Keith Keller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Hi, I have 2 Gb of memory in my server but can only use 1 of them
>>>>> today.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, but may I suggest you to switch to AMD64 instead?
>>>
>>> I believe a recompile is required for the kernel to be able to address
>>> ''large'' amounts of RAM (>1GB) regardless of the CPU used. So I don't
>>> see how your advice is helpful, particularly since the OP already has
>>> his hardware.
>> You actually need to recompile for more than 1G ram. However I have no
>> evidence of kernel's behavior for more than 1G under x86. The fact that
>> one has to recompile in this case sound highly suspicious about possible
>> problems.
>>
>>
>>
> I can't decide if you are being a Troll or are just too lazy to keep up
> with developments.
>
For me, facts show that you are just a plain dork.
> The ability to use more than 1 GB RAM has been around for some while. RH
> started shipping alternative kernels with it enabled around RH 8 AIR. It
> has been used on a number of hosts running busy mail servers.
>
Clearly you have never used an x86 with more than 1G. If not you wouldn't
write such a useless, misinformed and plain wrong post.
> I think the majority of problems have been ironed out.
You *think*? Are you not confident on what you are writing about? You
start insulting people with pointless arguments, and at the end of the day
you *think* you are right? So why not just keep you mouth shut, and
refrain from using the keyboard for posting nonsense?
Why don't you try 3G, and then come back and tell us what problems have
you got? Come on, make me laugh, you buffoon.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 01:10:08 +0000, +Alan Hicks+ wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, The Real Slim Shady dared to utter,
>> You actually need to recompile for more than 1G ram. However I have no
>> evidence of kernel's behavior for more than 1G under x86. The fact that
>> one has to recompile in this case sound highly suspicious about possible
>> problems.
>
> If you have no idea what the hell you're talking about keep your mouth
> shut. The linux kernel has options for how much RAM is addressable. The
> default config for Slackware kernels doesn't include BIGMEM which allows
> 32-bit processors to address up to 4 GB of RAM.
>
Are you the troll or just the idiot that post with this same name?
Why do you think - provided you have a primitive brain of course - that
you have 2 modes in the kernel for managing memory? I repeat, since you
seem to be quite retarted: 2 modes

One for memory < 1G
One for memory betweem 1 G and 4G

Even your rudimental brain should understand that something strange is
going on, instead of having a unique version you should recompile the
kernel in order to manage larger amount of memory. Which is addressable
by x86 without segmenting.

Experience will show you (if you can understand the word, of course) that
there is a difference under x86 with less than 1G of memory, or more.

Unfortunately sometimes the behavior with more than 1G on this platform is
not very good.
Let's only hope that the OP won't see this problems.

The Real Slim Shady wrote:
> > > You actually need to recompile for more than 1G ram. However I have no
> > > evidence of kernel's behavior for more than 1G under x86. The fact that
> > > one has to recompile in this case sound highly suspicious about possible
> > > problems.
> >
> > If you have no idea what the hell you're talking about keep your mouth
> > shut. The linux kernel has options for how much RAM is addressable. The
> > default config for Slackware kernels doesn't include BIGMEM which allows
> > 32-bit processors to address up to 4 GB of RAM.
>
> [stupid troll babble]

Shady, _you_ said you didn't think BIGMEM would work (well or at all)
with x86.

Alan said that this option _does_ work, and is in fact designed for x86.
It just isn't in the standard Slackware kernel.

You were wrong, Alan was right. Insulting him won't change that (jeez
what is this, Kindergarten!?).

~Mik

--
ls -l /mnt
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2004-11-11 17:57 doom -> /dev/null

Keith Keller wrote:
> I do not believe that there is a Slackware 10 pre-built
> kernel without the <=1GB option.

from the .config of 10.0's bare.i:

# CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G is not set
# CONFIG_HIGHMEM64G is not set
# CONFIG_HIGHMEM is not set

current's bare.i has the same.

So you'd have to recompile to actually _have_ support

~Mik

--
ls -l /mnt
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2004-11-11 17:57 doom -> /dev/null

Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> writes:
> The Real Slim Shady wrote:
[some crap]
> You were wrong, Alan was right. Insulting him won't change that (jeez what
> is this, Kindergarten!?).

no, i think we're seeing a +Chiron+ wannabee. unfortunately, he's not very
convincing.

--
Joost Kremers
Life has its moments

The Real Slim Shady wrote:


> Why don't you try 3G, and then come back and tell us what problems have
> you got? Come on, make me laugh, you buffoon.

let's not stop at 3GB. how about 4GB on x86? i have plenty of boxes with
that, and guess what - no problems. how's that for kicks?

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

> For me, facts show that you are just a plain dork.
>> The ability to use more than 1 GB RAM has been around for some while. RH
>> started shipping alternative kernels with it enabled around RH 8 AIR. It
>> has been used on a number of hosts running busy mail servers.
>>
> Clearly you have never used an x86 with more than 1G. If not you wouldn't
> write such a useless, misinformed and plain wrong post.
>> I think the majority of problems have been ironed out.
> You *think*? Are you not confident on what you are writing about? You
> start insulting people with pointless arguments, and at the end of the day
> you *think* you are right? So why not just keep you mouth shut, and
> refrain from using the keyboard for posting nonsense?
> Why don't you try 3G, and then come back and tell us what problems have
> you got? Come on, make me laugh, you buffoon.


For me, the less polite you are the less likely you are to understand what
YOU are talking about and the more likely you are to base your statements
on biased opinion rather than real facts.

PLONK

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joost Kremers <joostkremers@yahoo.com> trolled:
> Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> writes:
>> The Real Slim Shady wrote:
> [some crap]
>> You were wrong, Alan was right. Insulting him won't change that
>> (jeez what is this, Kindergarten!?).
>
> no, i think we're seeing a +Chiron+ wannabee. unfortunately, he's
> not very convincing.

The +Chiron+ wannabee is +Alan Hicks+.

cordially, even to trash,

rm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBQZ4tceEckfDWS6x8EQKgEACgogoER6fZpZkrThoF68EE5Q PbkzMAoMTk
E1KU95BdL9ltjsDCqWZYuotT
=W/Ep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----