Re: Install i386 or amd64?

[jmitchel%bigjar.com@localhost]

> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:30:47PM -0500, jmitchel%bigjar.com@localhost wrote:
>> >
>
> Quote all of it:
>
>>>> You are still limited to a 32bit address space in the process so you
>>>> still can't go over the 4Gb memory limit and that is divided between
>>>> kernel and user space hence why a process gets 2(ish)Gb.  These
>>>> limitations don't apply to a true 64bit system.
>
> Note the mention of division between kernel and user space.  Yes, I
> could have made it blindingly obvious the 4Gb limit applied to the
> process... mea culpa.  You can stuff more memory into an i386 PAE
> capable machine and have more processes but it does not take away the
> limitations on those processes.

You needed to make it "blindly obvious" because most people who would have
immediately understood what you were saying are already knowledgeable
about PAE.

>
>>
>> When did we start talking about a per-process limit, versus how much
>> memory the OS can operate?
>>
>
> When PAE was mentioned.
>

Only someone very familiar with PAE would figure that out right away.

>>This is an important distinction to make, given
>> that the original poster said:
>>
>> "Actually the B590 comes with 2GB RAM"
>>
>> That's the laptop he was installing NetBSD on. And laptops or desktops
>> with 2,4, or 8GB are going to common machines that users could ask about
>> installing NetBSD on. Mentioning a 4GB per process limit to these people
>> is absurd.
>>
>
> What? To actually mention a technical limitation of i386/PAE?  That
> particular laptop can support up to 8Gb of RAM so it is feasible that
> someone could install a 32bit NetBSD using PAE to access all the memory
> and then wonder why their applications can only see 2-3Gb.  It happens.

And some people need i386 (if they need to run wine, for example, as was
mentioned in the thread). That happens too.

>
>> If other users have questions about what port
>> to run on a laptop or desktop and read this thread it would just confuse
>> them. This is netbsd-users, not tech-kern, or even port-i386/port-amd64.
>>
>
> In that case, why mention PAE at all?  There was pretty clear advice
> prior to your email recommending just running amd64.  Your message
> looked to be implying that i386/PAE was just as functional as amd64.
> This is not the case.

I implied nothing of the sort. I asked a question (read my original post):

>Not to advocate i386 over amd64, but doesn't NetBSD/i386 support PAE and
>thus can access >2GB of RAM?

I was hoping that someone would provide helpful information about PAE
support in i386. What I got was cryptic and would have required that I
spend a fair amount of time reading about PAE to actually understand it.
Usually people here are helpful. You were dismissive and rude. I apologize
for responding in kind, but this was the first time I was ever unhappy
that I posted to a NetBSD mailing list.

>
>> I think he (and maybe you) just want to show how smart you are, tossing
>> out facts that are meaningless trivia in the current context, rather
>> than
>> paying attention to and answering questions from users.
>>
>
> This paragraph was totally unnecessary and pretty disrespectful to two
> NetBSD developers.
>