Can 32-bit Puppy use >3 GB of RAM? (Yes, with PAE)
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.
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.
Problem with RAM use on a 4GB system
You did NOT post your filesystem report for some reason.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.
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.
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.).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.
...
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: Select all
-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
Code: Select all
-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: Select all
# 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: Select all
# 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
Hope this helps
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
Last edited by gcmartin on Wed 23 Mar 2011, 05:55, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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.
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 ... ost3458590
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.
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.
Re: PAE or 64bit seems to be the answer
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.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.
If it's a bug in Linux, or at least in Puppy, then Windows seems to have it too.
Re: PAE or 64bit seems to be the answer
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.Flash wrote: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.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.
If it's a bug in Linux, or at least in Puppy, then Windows seems to have it too.
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.
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.
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).
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?
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: [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]
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/viewto ... 557#460557
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 557#460557
Hehehe ... I compiled Wary kernel with HIGHMEM64G option also, and yes available memory went from 2.9GB to 3.9GB (this is on a 4GB machine).
Bad news though, enabling this option is enough to change the module layout signature, so existing modules won't load. You will also need to re-compile all the modules also (and then install that modules to pup.sfs and initrd.gz). I didn't do that, so I only got as far as the ramdisk shell
Bad news though, enabling this option is enough to change the module layout signature, so existing modules won't load. You will also need to re-compile all the modules also (and then install that modules to pup.sfs and initrd.gz). I didn't do that, so I only got as far as the ramdisk shell
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]
You always have to compile all modules I think everytime you even make small changes to the kernel .configHehehe ... I compiled Wary kernel with HIGHMEM64G option also, and yes available memory went from 2.9GB to 3.9GB (this is on a 4GB machine).
May I ask about the architecture you did choose ?
Common seems to be the CONFIG_M586
or CONFIG_M686
but 4GB+ Machines might be worth _MCORE2 or _MATOM
I have no machine above 1GB and my testbox is a P4 with 448MB RAM and until now I can say that it is no performance difference in _M386, _M486, _M586, _M586TSC, _M686
and _PREEMPT or _PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
- technosaurus
- Posts: 4853
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008, 01:24
- Location: Blue Springs, MO
- Contact:
the biggest difference in the architectures is the stack size. medium sized apps can fit in later architectures whereas only really small apps can fit on older ones. it makes a big difference if for instance you can tweak the kernel and compiler enough to fit your high load web server.
Check out my [url=https://github.com/technosaurus]github repositories[/url]. I may eventually get around to updating my [url=http://bashismal.blogspot.com]blogspot[/url].
Barry produces the base 32bit kernel(s)
For mainstream 32bit Pups, Barry produces the kernels. Have we taken the time to present this issue to Barry? Anyone? He may have consciously done this for a reason he feels passionate about. We won't understand unless he responds.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
I did pm Barry to reference him to this thread, but as yet have not heard back.
Gcmartin is absolutely right, this is something that Barry, or whoever is creating the puppy needs to do at the beginning, rather than as a patch, as shown by Jamesbond.
Perhaps this is something that should be considered when building puppy 6? Something for the future?
Gcmartin is absolutely right, this is something that Barry, or whoever is creating the puppy needs to do at the beginning, rather than as a patch, as shown by Jamesbond.
Perhaps this is something that should be considered when building puppy 6? Something for the future?