The time now is Fri 06 Dec 2019, 21:29
All times are UTC - 4 |
Author |
Message |
p310don
Joined: 19 May 2009 Posts: 1433 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Thu 17 Mar 2011, 21:37 Post subject:
|
|
I see this
Computer
Processor 2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Memory 3115MB (208MB used)
Operating System Puppy Linux 0.52
User Name root (root)
Date/Time Fri 18 Mar 2011 11:33:26 EST
I am not running as pfix=ram as you are (?) but I did try it as such, and get the same ram figure. The filesystem shows my save file, as opposed to my memory size.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
gcmartin
Joined: 14 Oct 2005 Posts: 6730 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Fri 18 Mar 2011, 00:03 Post subject:
Problem with RAM use on a 4GB system |
|
p310don wrote: | I see this
Computer
Processor 2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Memory 3115MB (208MB used)
Operating System Puppy Linux 0.52
User Name root (root)
Date/Time Fri 18 Mar 2011 11:33:26 EST
I am not running as pfix=ram as you are (?) but I did try it as such, and get the same ram figure. The filesystem shows my save file, as opposed to my memory size. | You did NOT post your filesystem report for some reason.
Observation: You may want to download and run FATDOG on your platform to see results that you obtain. I get different results when using FATDOG....but that is 64bit versus 'your call for 32bit".
Check this: Do you have a SWAP partition or are you running a swap file that resides in your system's file system? We can't help you if you don't share enough information that we can use to pin-point your problem. Flash wrote: | Here's what I see, in a computer with 4 GB of RAM but no hard disk, running Puppy from a multisession DVD.
... | You peaked my interest, so I shutdown and booted WARY. Here's what I got so, maybe, there is a bug (but, certainly, this needs more investigation.).
Heres my report which should match what you have. I am running latest WARY LiveDVD on same system which has a SWAP partition on the local HDD. I am missing storage, same as you. Code: | -Computer-
Processor : 2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+
Memory : 3634MB (135MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.50
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Thu 17 Mar 2011 11:04:07 PM UTC | and
Code: | -Mounted File Systems-
rootfs / 0.28 % (3.7 GiB of 3.8 GiB)
tmpfs /initrd/pup_rw 0.28 % (3.7 GiB of 3.8 GiB)
tmpfs /initrd/mnt/tmpfs 99.09 % (900.0 KiB of 96.4 MiB)
/dev/loop0 /initrd/pup_ro2 100.00 % (0.0 B of 95.5 MiB)
unionfs / 0.28 % (3.7 GiB of 3.8 GiB)
shmfs /dev/shm 0.00 % (859.1 MiB of 859.1 MiB) |
Code: | # df -l
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
tmpfs 3933876 10972 3922904 1% /initrd/pup_rw
tmpfs 98704 97804 900 100% /initrd/mnt/tmpfs
/dev/loop0 97792 97792 0 100% /initrd/pup_ro2
unionfs 3933876 10972 3922904 1% /
shmfs 879764 0 879764 0% /dev/shm |
Code: | # fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x000b935d
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 59918 60801 7100730 5 Extended
/dev/sda2 1 6374 51199123+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda5 60275 60801 4233127+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
Partition table entries are not in disk order | I'm going to report this as a potential bug.
Hope this helps
_________________ Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engines or use DogPile
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
gcmartin
Joined: 14 Oct 2005 Posts: 6730 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 03:26 Post subject:
Got the same results on other 32bit PUPs |
|
I got, virtually, the same results on following 32bit Pups:
Luci256
MacPUP 520
WARY5.1.1
QuickSet-WARY 505q
LightHouse 5.03G Hope this helps
_________________ Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engines or use DogPile
Last edited by gcmartin on Wed 23 Mar 2011, 01:55; edited 1 time in total
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
scsijon
Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 1535 Location: the australian mallee
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 04:37 Post subject:
|
|
1/ A part of the problem can be hardware chipsets, a lot of the 32bit chipsets used on motherboards have saved components by using some of the addressing matrixes for their internal device addressing.
2/ It hasn't been that long since the standard memory was stepped up from 256meg to 1gig and with 4 memory slots it was planned for 1 or 2gig (using alternate slots) just not 4gig. The possability of 4gig or even 16gig cards was in the address space for the memory socket, just not expected to be used by all motherboards.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
bigpup

Joined: 11 Oct 2009 Posts: 12967 Location: S.C. USA
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 07:38 Post subject:
|
|
James C wrote: | All 32 bit Linux kernels (without PAE enabled) are limited to using about 3.2 to 3.4 Gb of ram ........minus reserved ram for onboard graphics, etc. It's a kernel limitation that applies to all distros...not just Puppy.
As an example, I just booted Ubuntu 10.10 in a box with 4 Gb ram.... it only showed 2.7 Gb ram .....the 3.2 minus 512 Mb for the graphics equals the 2.7 Gb that shows.
The solution is a PAE enabled kernel or run a 64 bit version.
See here
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/32-bit-os-and-4gb-memory-limit-707762/#post3458590 |
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
gcmartin
Joined: 14 Oct 2005 Posts: 6730 Location: Earth
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 13:15 Post subject:
PAE or 64bit seems to be the answer |
|
Thanks #BIGpup. 32bit PUPs do not support modern hardware like 64bit FATDOG does. That's why I am getting differing readings using differing PUPs vs FATDOG on the same system.
Request: If anyone is running a 32bit PUP on any PC that has 6GB/8GB, Please post your Hardinfo summary for a review. Thanks in advance.
Edited Today, at 4:15 pm EST - Don't bother to post on the "Request" I ask..
I just found out that this is an issue that BarryK or 32bit PUP system builders are going to have to address. It appears to be an oversight by them. Appears to have been an oversight for quite a while.
Thanks to @p310don for bringing this to the forum's attentions. Thanks again, BIGpup, for your expert help.
_________________ Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Engines or use DogPile
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Flash
Official Dog Handler

Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 13388 Location: Arizona USA
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 15:59 Post subject:
Re: PAE or 64bit seems to be the answer |
|
gcmartin wrote: | Appears to have been an oversight for quite a while.
Thanks to @p310don for bringing this to the forum's attentions. Thanks again, BIGpup, for your expert help. |
This is not the first time the question has come up in the forum. Perhaps a year or two ago there was a thread discussing why neither Linux nor Windows see more than about 3.3 GB of RAM.
If it's a bug in Linux, or at least in Puppy, then Windows seems to have it too.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
James C

Joined: 26 Mar 2009 Posts: 6734 Location: Kentucky
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 16:38 Post subject:
Re: PAE or 64bit seems to be the answer |
|
Flash wrote: | gcmartin wrote: | Appears to have been an oversight for quite a while.
Thanks to @p310don for bringing this to the forum's attentions. Thanks again, BIGpup, for your expert help. |
This is not the first time the question has come up in the forum. Perhaps a year or two ago there was a thread discussing why neither Linux nor Windows see more than about 3.3 GB of RAM.
If it's a bug in Linux, or at least in Puppy, then Windows seems to have it too. |
It's a 32 bit limitation, period. Windows and all 32 bit Linux distros without the PAE kernel will only show about 3.2 to 3.4 Gb of ram.I'm not going to get into all the physical memory addresses and virtual memory addresses stuff .......it's not a bug or oversight...it's just a reality.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
p310don
Joined: 19 May 2009 Posts: 1433 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 17:24 Post subject:
|
|
To summarise, and try to bring things back on track - standart puppies DO NOT see more than 3.1ish gig of ram, because they are 32bit, NOT A BUG WITH PUPPY. This is a limitation as a result of being a 32bit operating system. Google it for further explanation.
The point of this thread isn't to imply a bug with puppy, but I was hoping that a puppy dev genius, might be able to address the issue with an ingeniously creative solution.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
Flash
Official Dog Handler

Joined: 04 May 2005 Posts: 13388 Location: Arizona USA
|
Posted: Sat 19 Mar 2011, 21:52 Post subject:
|
|
All I can say is, 2^32 = nearly 4.3 GB.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
amigo
Joined: 02 Apr 2007 Posts: 2647
|
Posted: Sun 20 Mar 2011, 04:04 Post subject:
|
|
I'll say again that the kernel does see all 4GB. But, it reserves ~1GB for itself leaving only ~GB available to userspace. It is a bit of a waste because the kernel will never need all that for itself, but the only way to change those proportions is to patch the kernel. With PAE enabled, the kernel can see above 4GB and also allows a way to change the proportion dynamically (IIRC).
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
jamesbond
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 3384 Location: The Blue Marble
|
Posted: Sun 20 Mar 2011, 06:10 Post subject:
|
|
Time for a test then
I just checked, Barry's kernels don't have HIGHMEM64GB enabled (I think this is what is needed to enable PAE). All that is needed to do is to get Barry's kernel package, enable this config item, and re-build the kernel, then supplant the new kernel into existing puppy (e.g. latest Wary for example). If we're lucky then we don't even need to rebuild the modules, it would be just straightforward swap of vmlinuz with the new bzImage.
Then those having more than 4GB of RAM can do a test, and see whether the ramdisk thing is really working ...
Anyone?
_________________ Fatdog64 forum links: Latest version | Contributed packages | ISO builder
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
p310don
Joined: 19 May 2009 Posts: 1433 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Sun 20 Mar 2011, 07:26 Post subject:
|
|
Jamesbond...
Quote: | Time for a test then Smile |
Agreed. Now, I don't have the skill to patch kernels, but if someone wants to do it, I will happily test it.
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
ecube

Joined: 11 Jul 2008 Posts: 88 Location: Västerås, Sweden
|
Posted: Mon 21 Mar 2011, 15:08 Post subject:
|
|
I don't know if it has any bearing on the topic discussed, but I was successful in adapting Fluppy 06 to 4 GB RAM.
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=460557#460557
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
p310don
Joined: 19 May 2009 Posts: 1433 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Posted: Mon 21 Mar 2011, 18:45 Post subject:
|
|
Ecube - how is that working out for you? Are there any stability issues? Did it increase the size of fluppy significantly? Have you noticed any pros and/or cons?
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|