p310don - take your time
Can 32-bit Puppy use >3 GB of RAM? (Yes, with PAE)
Thank you James C. I'm not aware it refuses to create savefile (I didn't test it that far). As for memory, it's 10MB difference, quite significant for a 256MB machine (4%). How is the performance - do you feel Firefox is more/less sluggish or about equal?
p310don - take your time
p310don - take your time
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]
-
gcmartin
@jamesbond and @James C and others, too, feel as I feel, although we may not be saying it the same way.
Year or more ago, I approached Barry, first, then the community elsewhere about the "reasonability" of declaring what platforms a PUP is targeted for.
I understand why there is a reluctance to make such a declaration. But, I feel this is a very important declaration for the reasons we are discussing this here. We are addressing a :Large RAM issue. Its important to know the amount of memory it will take on PC with small RAMs, but, we are addressing LARGE RAM PCs.
If we can demonstrate that there is no impact of these upgrades to PUPs on Large RAM PCs, then we have provided an answer to those who would/should be using this in their Distro.
And, in a separate thread, we may want to show BARRY and others how little impact this upgrade has on "small ram" PCs.
James C's report, I feel is very significant, especially to the small ram community who might find other reasons to use this distro on a small ram PC. For example, if I have small ram and this distro, I may find that even with the use of SWAP partition, my performance gain when reaching "ram saturation" (the point at which I'm using SWAP) has a much higher performance and greater stability (most important to me) than the other distro provide.
Anyway, seems that on a 512MB-8GB PC, I wouldn't concern myself with 10-20MB of storage, unless, I am using a lot of /tmp or program ram without the benefit of SWAP,
In this thread, we should put a stake in the ground on this, by "declaring" the platforms we believe this upgrade will safely deploy on Further, we should have a separate thread where those with smaller 32bit RAM platforms, that do not meet the minimum we declare, to post their findings when using this kernel. That way, issues of running this in a "small ram" on that thread, I predict, will be very different than those we discuss, here, in this "LARGE RAM" thread.
BarryK has only a small ram PC. I would think that even if this thread demonstrates reasonableness, there MAY be a reluctance on his part to want involvement.
On the other hand, other distro owners who offer solutions for easy additions to their 32bit distros (LightHouse Mariner and Official PUP V5.2 come to mind), they would want to insure that this kernel upgrade is incorporated in their distros because it is obvious that they intent this to address year 2000+ PC platforms of ALL sizes. Especaially since this really does address system stability without any significant performance execution degradation.
I think the Puppy 32bit community will benefit greatly by everyone's efforts here.
PAE hardware has been incorporated in all 32bit CPUs for many years now. It was put there for our benefit. We are now starting to see many more PC that will be adding memory in lue of upgrading. I recently saw a 4GB ECC DDR chip for $50 (US). On my 32bit Xeon, this delays a server upgrade by about a year. Others running Puppy on 32bit platform can reasonable deploy all kinds of VM and other applications totally in RAM iff their PUP distro allows it. The possibilities go on and on. Again, we benefit from this kernel distro upgrade.
Hope this helps
Year or more ago, I approached Barry, first, then the community elsewhere about the "reasonability" of declaring what platforms a PUP is targeted for.
I understand why there is a reluctance to make such a declaration. But, I feel this is a very important declaration for the reasons we are discussing this here. We are addressing a :Large RAM issue. Its important to know the amount of memory it will take on PC with small RAMs, but, we are addressing LARGE RAM PCs.
If we can demonstrate that there is no impact of these upgrades to PUPs on Large RAM PCs, then we have provided an answer to those who would/should be using this in their Distro.
And, in a separate thread, we may want to show BARRY and others how little impact this upgrade has on "small ram" PCs.
James C's report, I feel is very significant, especially to the small ram community who might find other reasons to use this distro on a small ram PC. For example, if I have small ram and this distro, I may find that even with the use of SWAP partition, my performance gain when reaching "ram saturation" (the point at which I'm using SWAP) has a much higher performance and greater stability (most important to me) than the other distro provide.
Anyway, seems that on a 512MB-8GB PC, I wouldn't concern myself with 10-20MB of storage, unless, I am using a lot of /tmp or program ram without the benefit of SWAP,
In this thread, we should put a stake in the ground on this, by "declaring" the platforms we believe this upgrade will safely deploy on Further, we should have a separate thread where those with smaller 32bit RAM platforms, that do not meet the minimum we declare, to post their findings when using this kernel. That way, issues of running this in a "small ram" on that thread, I predict, will be very different than those we discuss, here, in this "LARGE RAM" thread.
BarryK has only a small ram PC. I would think that even if this thread demonstrates reasonableness, there MAY be a reluctance on his part to want involvement.
On the other hand, other distro owners who offer solutions for easy additions to their 32bit distros (LightHouse Mariner and Official PUP V5.2 come to mind), they would want to insure that this kernel upgrade is incorporated in their distros because it is obvious that they intent this to address year 2000+ PC platforms of ALL sizes. Especaially since this really does address system stability without any significant performance execution degradation.
I think the Puppy 32bit community will benefit greatly by everyone's efforts here.
PAE hardware has been incorporated in all 32bit CPUs for many years now. It was put there for our benefit. We are now starting to see many more PC that will be adding memory in lue of upgrading. I recently saw a 4GB ECC DDR chip for $50 (US). On my 32bit Xeon, this delays a server upgrade by about a year. Others running Puppy on 32bit platform can reasonable deploy all kinds of VM and other applications totally in RAM iff their PUP distro allows it. The possibilities go on and on. Again, we benefit from this kernel distro upgrade.
Hope this helps
Last edited by gcmartin on Fri 08 Apr 2011, 00:19, edited 1 time in total.
Benchmarks
Ok, I have done my first round of benchmarks comparing Vanilla Wary 5.11 and HUGEMEM Wary 5.11
This is only very basic so far. I have booted the machines into a live cd of each version of Wary, and using Hardinfo only, have recorded the memory total and used, and then run all six benchmarks at the bottom of Hardinfo.
NON PAE (STANDARD)
CPU 2 x Athlon(tm) 64 x2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Total Memory 3115
Ram Used 88
CPU Blowfish 7.04
CPU Cryptohash 161.29
CPU Fibonacci 2.59
CPU N-Queens 13.36
FPU-FFT 5.26
FPU-Raytracing 15.36
WITH PAE (HUGEMEM)
CPU 2 x Athlon(tm) 64 x2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Total Memory 4147
Ram Used 87
CPU Blowfish 7.04
CPU Cryptohash 161.76
CPU Fibonacci 2.59
CPU N-Queens 13.31
FPU-FFT 5.27
FPU-Raytracing 15.34
No significant differences, apart from RAM total
NON PAE (STANDARD)
CPU CELERON (COPPERMINE)
Total Memory 189
Ram Used 77
CPU Blowfish 26.19
CPU Cryptohash 13.82
CPU Fibonacci 18.75
CPU N-Queens 44.46
FPU-FFT 88.74
FPU-Raytracing 94.34
WITH PAE (HUGEMEM)
CPU CELERON (COPPERMINE)
Total Memory 189
Ram Used 76
CPU Blowfish 26.19
CPU Cryptohash 13.43
CPU Fibonacci 18.53
CPU N-Queens 44.48
FPU-FFT 89.28
FPU-Raytracing 94.43
No significant differences.
Will do more "Real World" testing and report later. Going to the Gold Coast for a holiday now!
This is only very basic so far. I have booted the machines into a live cd of each version of Wary, and using Hardinfo only, have recorded the memory total and used, and then run all six benchmarks at the bottom of Hardinfo.
NON PAE (STANDARD)
CPU 2 x Athlon(tm) 64 x2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Total Memory 3115
Ram Used 88
CPU Blowfish 7.04
CPU Cryptohash 161.29
CPU Fibonacci 2.59
CPU N-Queens 13.36
FPU-FFT 5.26
FPU-Raytracing 15.36
WITH PAE (HUGEMEM)
CPU 2 x Athlon(tm) 64 x2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
Total Memory 4147
Ram Used 87
CPU Blowfish 7.04
CPU Cryptohash 161.76
CPU Fibonacci 2.59
CPU N-Queens 13.31
FPU-FFT 5.27
FPU-Raytracing 15.34
No significant differences, apart from RAM total
NON PAE (STANDARD)
CPU CELERON (COPPERMINE)
Total Memory 189
Ram Used 77
CPU Blowfish 26.19
CPU Cryptohash 13.82
CPU Fibonacci 18.75
CPU N-Queens 44.46
FPU-FFT 88.74
FPU-Raytracing 94.34
WITH PAE (HUGEMEM)
CPU CELERON (COPPERMINE)
Total Memory 189
Ram Used 76
CPU Blowfish 26.19
CPU Cryptohash 13.43
CPU Fibonacci 18.53
CPU N-Queens 44.48
FPU-FFT 89.28
FPU-Raytracing 94.43
No significant differences.
Will do more "Real World" testing and report later. Going to the Gold Coast for a holiday now!
-
gcmartin
Separate LARGE RAM from small ram discussion
Again, we may want to have this thread's focus on LARGE RAM (... >3.1 GB of RAM) while starting a separate thread for PAE on "small ram" less than 512MB. That means 2 threads; this and a PAE small ram thread for discussion.
Another option is to change this thread's title to reflect the direction we are partaking. For example "PAE benefits in LARGE RAM and small ram environments" and I'm sure other tits come to mind.
Issues when using the kernel in these 2 environments MAY be different. . But it would add strength to providing Barry with reliable information which might prove useful in his evaluation of this kernel change.
This is just a hunch on my part .(I may be wrong here, though)
Another option is to change this thread's title to reflect the direction we are partaking. For example "PAE benefits in LARGE RAM and small ram environments" and I'm sure other tits come to mind.
Issues when using the kernel in these 2 environments MAY be different. . But it would add strength to providing Barry with reliable information which might prove useful in his evaluation of this kernel change.
This is just a hunch on my part .(I may be wrong here, though)
Some benchmarks on a Puppy spec computer.......
Wary 511
-Computer-
Processor : Pentium III (Coppermine)
Memory : 254MB (55MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Thu 07 Apr 2011 07:59:25 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
-CPU Blowfish
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 62.186
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 26.1876862
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 172.816713
-CPU CryptoHash
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 18.923
-CPU Fibonacci-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 14.173
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 8.1375674
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 58.07682
-CPU N-Queens-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 34.026
-FPU FFT
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 67.920
-FPU Raytracing-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 72.426
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 40.8816714
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 161.312647
Wary 511 PAE
-Computer-
Processor : Pentium III (Coppermine)
Memory : 254MB (66MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Thu 07 Apr 2011 08:40:36 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
-CPU Blowfish-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 62.304
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 26.1876862
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 172.816713
-CPU CryptoHash-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 18.808
-CPU Fibonacci-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 14.187
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 8.1375674
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 58.07682
-CPU N-Queens-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 34.171
-FPU FFT-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 68.098
-FPU Raytracing-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 72.514
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 40.8816714
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 161.312647
Unscientifically measured with a stopwatch on 3 boots each version, the PAE version takes about 7 seconds longer to boot (from selection in Grub to all icons being visible on taskbar).
The PAE Wary uses a bit more ram and is some slower on all the benchmarks.
Wary 511
-Computer-
Processor : Pentium III (Coppermine)
Memory : 254MB (55MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Thu 07 Apr 2011 07:59:25 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
-CPU Blowfish
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 62.186
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 26.1876862
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 172.816713
-CPU CryptoHash
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 18.923
-CPU Fibonacci-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 14.173
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 8.1375674
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 58.07682
-CPU N-Queens-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 34.026
-FPU FFT
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 67.920
-FPU Raytracing-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 72.426
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 40.8816714
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 161.312647
Wary 511 PAE
-Computer-
Processor : Pentium III (Coppermine)
Memory : 254MB (66MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Thu 07 Apr 2011 08:40:36 PM CDT
-Display-
Resolution : 1024x768 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
-CPU Blowfish-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 62.304
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 26.1876862
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 172.816713
-CPU CryptoHash-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 18.808
-CPU Fibonacci-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 14.187
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 8.1375674
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 58.07682
-CPU N-Queens-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 34.171
-FPU FFT-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 68.098
-FPU Raytracing-
<big><b>This Machine</b></big> 731 MHz 72.514
Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.50GHz (null) 40.8816714
PowerPC 740/750 (280.00MHz) (null) 161.312647
Unscientifically measured with a stopwatch on 3 boots each version, the PAE version takes about 7 seconds longer to boot (from selection in Grub to all icons being visible on taskbar).
The PAE Wary uses a bit more ram and is some slower on all the benchmarks.
I've been involved in the development of the Puppy "flagship" ,Lucid Puppy, since the beginning.One of the primary objectives was to keep things small enough so a user could boot the cd in a 256 mb ram computer, load everything in ram and subsequently eject the disc to free up the optical drive.gcmartin wrote: Year or more ago, I approached Barry, first, then the community elsewhere about the "reasonability" of declaring what platforms a PUP is targeted for.
This seems to show that Puppy is still targeted toward low-spec computers but while still having the ability to run well on newer multi-core equipment.
Haven't done much "real world" testing on this yet..........with only a couple of browser tabs open it seems about the same.I'm curious though what will happen with more load....I'll try to make time for some testing the next couple of days.jamesbond wrote:Thank you James C. I'm not aware it refuses to create savefile (I didn't test it that far). As for memory, it's 10MB difference, quite significant for a 256MB machine (4%). How is the performance - do you feel Firefox is more/less sluggish or about equal?
p310don - take your time
p310don wrote:James C
Strange that you are finding more ram usage with the PAE kernel, as expected, and I am finding a tiny bit less. Do you have something else open, like firefox? I have nothing but hardinfo.
I'll have to do some boot time measurements. 7 seconds is definitely significant....
Nope. Had nothing open but hardinfo.
Opened hardinfo, clicked summary....copied info,ran benchmark...copied info, etc.
Never tested it before but I suspect the effect on low-spec equipment is why all the major distros use a non-PAE kernel as default.
About the booting, I'm using the identical savefile (copied the regular Wary save into the PAE folder) and running an fsck on both every boot.
Thanks everyone.
I think the boot-time impact and the memory impact is quite obvious by now. Only performance impact is still dangling.
I was suggesting firefox and the like because the benchmarks from hardinfo measures mostly only the raw CPU power, which shouldn't change a lot between PAE/non-PAE.
PAE changes the way memory is managed by the OS - thus its impact will be more visible from applications that juggle memory a lot, such as seamonkey / firefox, or those that uses a lot of memory - graphics editor and large apps such as open/libre office. May be watch youtube, scroll up/down complex pages a few times (in browser/openoffice), etc.
BTW, I tested PAE Wary with shutdown - and it created a good savefile for me, hmm
I think the boot-time impact and the memory impact is quite obvious by now. Only performance impact is still dangling.
I was suggesting firefox and the like because the benchmarks from hardinfo measures mostly only the raw CPU power, which shouldn't change a lot between PAE/non-PAE.
PAE changes the way memory is managed by the OS - thus its impact will be more visible from applications that juggle memory a lot, such as seamonkey / firefox, or those that uses a lot of memory - graphics editor and large apps such as open/libre office. May be watch youtube, scroll up/down complex pages a few times (in browser/openoffice), etc.
BTW, I tested PAE Wary with shutdown - and it created a good savefile for me, hmm
Fatdog64 forum links: [url=http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=117546]Latest version[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/ke8sn5H]Contributed packages[/url] | [url=https://cutt.ly/se8scrb]ISO builder[/url]
-
gcmartin
RAM performance impact
I agree with JamesBond on this need. The other items are trivial (mostly non-existent on 4GB PCs).jamesbond wrote:Only performance impact is still dangling. ... BTW, I tested PAE Wary with shutdown - and it created a good savefile for me, hmm
2 Questions:
Can someone help me. Does anyone have a PAE ISO available for download that I can access for test? If so, post or send me a PM. I'm interested in testing the exact "Live" configurations you are using so that my measurements and reports can be consistent as much as possible with what's already been reported.
Edited: JamesBond's Wary. is here
Is there a hardinfo item which tells if PAE support is active in the running 32bit PUPs?.
Performance Expectations
On the performance, I want to share an experience: On a 2010 benchmark at a system center, we were not able to exercise the newer system for 2 reasons: it was so much faster that it was completing work faster than we could generate work for it? To overcome this, we had to create a timed-loop application to build enough of a load to make an attempt at comparison.
Then, on memory saturation, it was impossible due to the nature of the internet. 2 DS3 links inbound to the system failed saturate memory in such a way as to get a true measure.
Advice: We should not be too disappointed to find that the hardware PAE is just as effective at delivering pages as old frame management is. After all, the manufacturers have been doing this for over 10 years. (If fact I wouldn't be surprise if a manufacturer had only one model and doesn't tell us about it....since, in theory, a circuit design could be indistinguishable in real time.)
This community has...
JamesBond has produced a positive shockwave in the PUPs community. Thanks, enormously, for your work in helping all of us.
Everyone here has contributed as we have gone from problem identification, to measurements, to identifying the missing element(s), to producing a testbed, to testing, and hopefully (and I do mean hopefully) to 32bit ISO productions that take advantage of the finding. There are going to be many more users configuration that meet this memory model and thus, they will have a PUP solution available without thought...no matter what size they have from 512MB to 16GB.
Last edited by gcmartin on Sun 17 Apr 2011, 22:40, edited 3 times in total.
jamesbond made hugemem wary5.11, see here http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 7&start=60Can someone help me. Does anyone have a PAE ISO available for download that I can access for test? If so, post or send me a PM. I'm interested in testing the exact "Live" configurations you are using so that my measurements and reports can be consistent as much as possible with what's already been reported.
Is there a hardinfo item which tells if PAE support is active in the running 32bit PUPs?.
I didn't see it, but it may be there under the kernel section. The obvious part is if you have higher than 3100ish meg of ram, you've got the PAE kernel running.
Hope to see your results soon gcmartin. I will be posting more soon also.
-
gcmartin
There IS a way for 32 bit PUPs to use >3.1 GB of RAM
Running the original 32bit WARY is immaterial based upon the work already done by this community. And, I dont have a PC that has less than 512MB of memory. So, running the non-PAE mode WARY provides no benfit to this discussion.
The resolution by JamesBond is working as expected. I see no degradation. Here's my report of running Humungous WARY o a 4GB PC!Here's my report of running Humungous WARY on a 1.5GB laptop.I am unable to generate any saturation workload on iethr of these PCs.
the HardInfo benchmark tools are about the only way to measurement data.
Let me know if here is other information you would like provvided. I am not seeing any performance solwing. In fact, it seems faster.. At the very worst, its about the same.
Hope this helps
The resolution by JamesBond is working as expected. I see no degradation. Here's my report of running Humungous WARY o a 4GB PC!
Code: Select all
-Computer-
Processor : 2x AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+
Memory : 4150MB (159MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Wed 13 Apr 2011 03:17:38 AM UTC
-Display-
Resolution : 1280x1024 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : HDA-Intel - HDA NVidia
Audio Adapter : USB-Audio - C-Media USB Headphone Set
-Input Devices-
MosArt Optical Mouse
USB Keyboard
USB Keyboard
C-Media USB Headphone Set
Power Button
Power Button
PC Speaker
-Printers (CUPS)-
CUPS-PDF : <i>Default</i>
-SCSI Disks-
ATA TOSHIBA MK5055GS
TSSTcorp CDDVDW SH-S223B
Optiarc DVD RW AD-7240S
Maxtor 6 L200P0
Code: Select all
-Computer-
Processor : 2x Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2080 @ 1.73GHz
Memory : 1545MB (176MB used)
Operating System : Puppy Linux 0.51
User Name : root (root)
Date/Time : Wed 13 Apr 2011 03:11:57 AM UTC
-Display-
Resolution : 1440x900 pixels
OpenGL Renderer : Mesa GLX Indirect
X11 Vendor : The X.Org Foundation
-Multimedia-
Audio Adapter : HDA-Intel - HDA Intel
-Input Devices-
AT Translated Set 2 keyboard
SynPS/2 Synaptics TouchPad
CHICONY HP Basic USB Keyboard
Power Button
Sleep Button
Lid Switch
Power Button
PC Speaker
-Printers (CUPS)-
CUPS-PDF : <i>Default</i>
-SCSI Disks-
Optiarc DVD RW AD-7560A
USB 2.0 USB Flash Drive
the HardInfo benchmark tools are about the only way to measurement data.
Let me know if here is other information you would like provvided. I am not seeing any performance solwing. In fact, it seems faster.. At the very worst, its about the same.
Hope this helps
Re: RAM performance impact
Good luck on this one. As far as I know,almost all distros use a non-PAE kernel as default. The iso everyone downloads will have a non-PAE kernel, usually during an install the PAE kernel can be downloaded and installed if sufficient memory is detected. Naturally the kernel can be installed later as well, if the user adds ram for an example.gcmartin wrote: Can someone help me. Does anyone have a PAE ISO available for download that I can access for test? If so, post or send me a PM. I'm interested in testing the exact "Live" configurations you are using so that my measurements and reports can be consistent as much as possible with what's already been reported..
Anyway, I can't think of a distro that downloads a PAE kernel as default, except maybe Red Hat.
-
gcmartin
Re: RAM performance impact
JamesC by saying this, gives support to what we are doing.James C wrote:Good luck on this one. As far as I know,almost all distros use a non-PAE kernel as default. The iso everyone downloads will have a non-PAE kernel, usually during an install the PAE kernel can be downloaded and installed if sufficient memory is detected. Naturally the kernel can be installed later as well, if the user adds ram for an example.
Anyway, I can't think of a distro that downloads a PAE kernel as default, except maybe Red Hat.
- We are demonstrating that running a single kernel on PC built since PentiumPro does NOT produce measurable downside in Linux operations (especially in PCs with 512MB+ RAM)
- If Puppy distros, who understand this demonstration, adopts the PAE kernel as their standard, then there is less work of their part to have to ever address a RAM limitation as they go forward, no matter what CPU is used....as long as its PentiumPRO forward.
Thanks for pointing that out. You are right to have helped us with that understanding.
Hope this helps.
P.S. In my eyes, this is historical in the Puppy world. Almost like discovering the "world is not flat"
-
gcmartin
I think most will understand why., but, for me, this may be a more meaningful dispay in how the OS is seeing RAM management.
Below on 4GB PC running "JamesBond's WARY distro"Below on 1.5GB laptop running "JamesBond's WARY distro" Hope this helps
Below on 4GB PC running "JamesBond's WARY distro"
Code: Select all
# free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 4150616 477208 3673408 0 61676
Swap: 4233116 0 4233116
Total: 8383732 477208 7906524Code: Select all
# free
total used free shared buffers
Mem: 1545372 449524 1095848 0 59008
Swap: 4216988 0 4216988
Total: 5762360 449524 5312836
-
gcmartin
A working real world distro for ALL PCs with 384MB+
JamesBond's Wary. is here And I display his instructions.Flash wrote:Give us a link to where we can download JamesBond's Wary.
Hope this helpsjamesbond wrote: ... PAE-enabled Wary 511 is available at http://mydrive.ch, under puppy32 folder, the filename is wary-511-hugemem.iso. Username is dotpet@puppyshare, password is puppylinux. It only contains the basic drivers - I didn't compile the extra modem drivers etc. Enjoy.
EDIT: md5sum is 350990e629fdb0f58c0dd65bbf2c2f49
EDIT: For reference, everything inside that iso is Wary511. Kernel is 2.6.32.28 based on Barry's kernel-2.6.32.28.sfs. DOTconfig is based on Barry's DOTconfig-6FEB2011, I only change the CPU architecture to 586 and enable HIGHMEM64GB.
-
gcmartin
Barry positions WARY platform support
Saw this post from BarryK. Its a response that should help all PUP developers with an understanding.
My intention in this post, by me, is NOT to position BarryK, at all; BUT it is to help anyone here to understand what current 32bit PUPs are designed for: 2 year old machines WITHOUT PAE.
His blog statement should help everyone with some key points to consider:
Point: Until last year's drops in cost of memory, most PUP machine users could NOT afford to upgrade. Now, with cost to upgrade being so low, most of us are doing memory upgrades, foregoing new purchases. And, we are seeing a much larger number of PC users with RAM exceeding 3/4GB.
Point: There is a lack of understanding of what PAE is and how Linux is designed to take advantage of it.
Point: Further, (and for good reason), there is a reluctance to take advantage of this "old" hardware built-in FEATURE because there is no predictor of what will occur with applications running in a "PAE aware" PUP.
Point: Barry's blog on this is the first "marker" for any PUP PC system postition statement I have seen. And, it is important, to me, as it targets its audience with a specific support position for mainline PUPs. (I have been asking for some sign like this since joining the forum...what PC configuration is PUP, WARY, etc. designed for?). So if PUPs don't run on or take advantage of newer hardware, its because of this design point.
BTW, please, everyone understand that 15 year old PAE is NOT A NEW PC FEATURE. Things like SATA III or USB3 or 6-Core are NEW features.
Together, all of this should help us to understand these key points, until a new PC system position statement for PUPs is upgraded or emerges.
In the meantime, all of us, here, should understand the following:
Most importantly: BarryK did NOT say to "don't build a PUP that does not contain PAE". In fact, it appears that he encourages PAE builds in his blog. And, now that this thread has shown the PUP community that LARGE RAM PCs could be fully utilized with the proper PUP kernel built, we should expect and see, sometime in the future, this not being overlooked anymore. It should (and I hope will) become standard.
This has been one of the more exciting projects that I have worked on. Its has shown how this diverse community comes together to announce, understand, research, discuss, build a model and test. Lets not drop the ball and help Barry should he make a WARY kernel available to use. The Puppy community should be VERY PROUD of its ability to be responsive as has been demonstrated here.
Maybe some PUP member could start a thread, where the community can contribute to a PUP distro (WARY-4GB or WARY-for-all-PCs) with this thread's findings. Or maybe someone will present a guideline thread for 3.5GB+users who need to run a 32bit PUP. Or maybe a new "PUP525 for all PCs, new and old". Or .... (I don't possess the talents to achieve this, but I will help wherever possible....testing perhaps, etc.)
Thanks again, everyone!
My intention in this post, by me, is NOT to position BarryK, at all; BUT it is to help anyone here to understand what current 32bit PUPs are designed for: 2 year old machines WITHOUT PAE.
His blog statement should help everyone with some key points to consider:
Point: Until last year's drops in cost of memory, most PUP machine users could NOT afford to upgrade. Now, with cost to upgrade being so low, most of us are doing memory upgrades, foregoing new purchases. And, we are seeing a much larger number of PC users with RAM exceeding 3/4GB.
Point: There is a lack of understanding of what PAE is and how Linux is designed to take advantage of it.
Point: Further, (and for good reason), there is a reluctance to take advantage of this "old" hardware built-in FEATURE because there is no predictor of what will occur with applications running in a "PAE aware" PUP.
Point: Barry's blog on this is the first "marker" for any PUP PC system postition statement I have seen. And, it is important, to me, as it targets its audience with a specific support position for mainline PUPs. (I have been asking for some sign like this since joining the forum...what PC configuration is PUP, WARY, etc. designed for?). So if PUPs don't run on or take advantage of newer hardware, its because of this design point.
BTW, please, everyone understand that 15 year old PAE is NOT A NEW PC FEATURE. Things like SATA III or USB3 or 6-Core are NEW features.
Together, all of this should help us to understand these key points, until a new PC system position statement for PUPs is upgraded or emerges.
In the meantime, all of us, here, should understand the following:
- FATDOG 64bit PUP is "an expanded, out of mainline PUP design".
- Any new 64bit OS using PUP desktops are "an expanded, out of mainline PUP design".
- JamesBond "Proof of Concept WARY" is "an expanded, out of mainline PUP design".
- Any 32bit PUP forthcoming with PAE operational is "an expanded, out of mainline PUP design".
Most importantly: BarryK did NOT say to "don't build a PUP that does not contain PAE". In fact, it appears that he encourages PAE builds in his blog. And, now that this thread has shown the PUP community that LARGE RAM PCs could be fully utilized with the proper PUP kernel built, we should expect and see, sometime in the future, this not being overlooked anymore. It should (and I hope will) become standard.
This has been one of the more exciting projects that I have worked on. Its has shown how this diverse community comes together to announce, understand, research, discuss, build a model and test. Lets not drop the ball and help Barry should he make a WARY kernel available to use. The Puppy community should be VERY PROUD of its ability to be responsive as has been demonstrated here.
Maybe some PUP member could start a thread, where the community can contribute to a PUP distro (WARY-4GB or WARY-for-all-PCs) with this thread's findings. Or maybe someone will present a guideline thread for 3.5GB+users who need to run a 32bit PUP. Or maybe a new "PUP525 for all PCs, new and old". Or .... (I don't possess the talents to achieve this, but I will help wherever possible....testing perhaps, etc.)
Thanks again, everyone!
Last edited by gcmartin on Wed 08 Jun 2011, 14:27, edited 1 time in total.