AMD64+Puppy

Using applications, configuring, problems
Post Reply
Message
Author
ChpFrI
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 28 Jan 2013, 05:50

AMD64+Puppy

#1 Post by ChpFrI »

Any caveats when running Puppy (Fatdog) on multi-lobed brain AMD64 architecture? :wink:

p310don
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009, 23:11
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#2 Post by p310don »

Yup, beware that you'll be going super fast...

Otherwise, no.

User avatar
prehistoric
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34

#3 Post by prehistoric »

Currently typing this on a new machine with Asus F2A85-M pro mainboard and an AMD A10 5800K quad-core processor running Fatdog 611 at 3800 MHz. The current hard drive is an SSD. I've already tried Precise Puppy 5.4.3.

I built the machine yesterday, and it is so much faster to test with Puppy before I waste time installing anything else, even if I'm building one for people who run Windoze. I used Linux Mint 14 to create a main partition and make it bootable. Fatdog's save file is inside that partition.

Does this answer your question?

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

Re: AMD64+Puppy

#4 Post by Q5sys »

ChpFrI wrote:Any caveats when running Puppy (Fatdog) on multi-lobed brain AMD64 architecture? :wink:
Ive been running on a quad core i5 for about a year now. The machine Im building now is a dual xeon system. You can use as many cores as you'd like, since fatdog, lighthouse, and Slackbones come with kernels that can handle multiple cores.

(yes I know i'm intel based, but that wont make a difference.)

User avatar
prehistoric
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue 23 Oct 2007, 17:34

#5 Post by prehistoric »

Note: the reason for running Fatdog (or several others mentioned) instead of Precise Puppy was to use their 64-bit capabilities. The present machine currently has 8 GB of DDR3 RAM I had lying around. At times I've had as much as 32 GB in a machine running a Puppy derivative. This is simply a matter of testing. You likely will have no need for anything close to this.

Even with 32-bit code, Precise Puppy can access more than 4 GB because of the PAE (Physical Address Extension.) It is, however, easier to use large memory in native 64-bit applications. People editing video, like the person for whom that machine was built, can use about as much RAM as they can buy.

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#6 Post by Q5sys »

prehistoric wrote:Note: the reason for running Fatdog (or several others mentioned) instead of Precise Puppy was to use their 64-bit capabilities. The present machine currently has 8 GB of DDR3 RAM I had lying around. At times I've had as much as 32 GB in a machine running a Puppy derivative. This is simply a matter of testing. You likely will have no need for anything close to this.

Even with 32-bit code, Precise Puppy can access more than 4 GB because of the PAE (Physical Address Extension.) It is, however, easier to use large memory in native 64-bit applications. People editing video, like the person for whom that machine was built, can use about as much RAM as they can buy.
Just an FYI for those that aren't aware... PAE is limited to 16gb I believe.
Microsoft's implementation of PAE in windows allows up to 64gb. As for linux... I think its distro dependent, as to if it'll do 16gb or 64gb.
I'm unsure what the limit is in the 64bit puppies... when I get the rest of my ram for my new system I'll test and let everyone know (will be a month or so)

p310don
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue 19 May 2009, 23:11
Location: Brisbane, Australia

#7 Post by p310don »

Just an FYI for those that aren't aware... PAE is limited to 16gb I believe.
I think you'll find its the same as MS at 64gig. I only have 8 gig so can't confirm or deny in practice, but I've never read anything about 16gig limits.

The only limitation in terms of memory compared to 64bit are that PAE can use up to 64gig in lots of 4gig per program. 64bit can allocate more than 4gig to a single program or process.

hth

edit - from wikipedia MS limits its PAE to still only use 4gig for some BS licensing reason

User avatar
Q5sys
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu 11 Dec 2008, 19:49
Contact:

#8 Post by Q5sys »

p310don wrote:
Just an FYI for those that aren't aware... PAE is limited to 16gb I believe.
I think you'll find its the same as MS at 64gig. I only have 8 gig so can't confirm or deny in practice, but I've never read anything about 16gig limits.

The only limitation in terms of memory compared to 64bit are that PAE can use up to 64gig in lots of 4gig per program. 64bit can allocate more than 4gig to a single program or process.

hth

edit - from wikipedia MS limits its PAE to still only use 4gig for some BS licensing reason
Regarding RedHat:
http://support.bull.com/ols/product/sys ... /PrKB11417
RHEL-4 kernels:
i686 - no PAE, no hugemem patches, can address up to 4GB memory
i686-smp - PAE, no hugemem patches, can reliably run with around 16GB
i686-hugemem - PAE, hugemem patches, can reliably run with 64GB

RHEL-5 kernels:
i686 - no PAE, no hugemem patches, can address up to 4GB of memory
i686-PAE - PAE, no hugemem patches, can reliably run with around 16GB
Solaris actually limited it at 32gb (no idea why)


As for windows... their limits range widely
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
Image

Post Reply