http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<[/ref][/ref][/ref] ------------------------------------------------------------------ Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/ [allowsmilie] => 1 [showsignature] => 0 [ipaddress] => [iconid] => 0 [visible] => 1 [attach] => 0 [infraction] => 0 [reportthreadid] => 0 [isusenetpost] => 1 [msgid] => [ref] => [htmlstate] => on_nl2br [postusername] => Stephen [ip] => stephen@stevedu [isdeleted] => 0 [usergroupid] => [membergroupids] => [displaygroupid] => [password] => [passworddate] => [email] => [styleid] => [parentemail] => [homepage] => [icq] => [aim] => [yahoo] => [msn] => [skype] => [showvbcode] => [showbirthday] => [usertitle] => [customtitle] => [joindate] => [daysprune] => [lastvisit] => [lastactivity] => [lastpost] => [lastpostid] => [posts] => [reputation] => [reputationlevelid] => [timezoneoffset] => [pmpopup] => [avatarid] => [avatarrevision] => [profilepicrevision] => [sigpicrevision] => [options] => [akvbghsfs_optionsfield] => [birthday] => [birthday_search] => [maxposts] => [startofweek] => [referrerid] => [languageid] => [emailstamp] => [threadedmode] => [autosubscribe] => [pmtotal] => [pmunread] => [salt] => [ipoints] => [infractions] => [warnings] => [infractiongroupids] => [infractiongroupid] => [adminoptions] => [profilevisits] => [friendcount] => [friendreqcount] => [vmunreadcount] => [vmmoderatedcount] => [socgroupinvitecount] => [socgroupreqcount] => [pcunreadcount] => [pcmoderatedcount] => [gmmoderatedcount] => [assetposthash] => [fbuserid] => [fbjoindate] => [fbname] => [logintype] => [fbaccesstoken] => [newrepcount] => [vbseo_likes_in] => [vbseo_likes_out] => [vbseo_likes_unread] => [temp] => [field1] => [field2] => [field3] => [field4] => [field5] => [subfolders] => [pmfolders] => [buddylist] => [ignorelist] => [signature] => [searchprefs] => [rank] => [icontitle] => [iconpath] => [avatarpath] => [hascustomavatar] => 0 [avatardateline] => [avwidth] => [avheight] => [edit_userid] => [edit_username] => [edit_dateline] => [edit_reason] => [hashistory] => [pagetext_html] => [hasimages] => [signatureparsed] => [sighasimages] => [sigpic] => [sigpicdateline] => [sigpicwidth] => [sigpicheight] => [postcount] => 2 [islastshown] => [isfirstshown] => [attachments] => [allattachments] => ) --> RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5?? - SCO

RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5?? - SCO

Frank Mabrey wrote:   Are you sure you're running 5.0.5? The amount it's reporting is how much you would see with OpenServer 5.0.0 or 5.0.2, which had a 768MB memory limit. Also, 5.0.0 and 5.0.2 would only see 512MB unless you forced the issue with a "mem=" bootstring like you show; 5.0.4 and later will see the extra memory by default. The amount of RAM OpenServer sees is not at all limited by swap. The amount you can _use_ may be limited slightly if you have very little swap (it varies greatly depending on how your applications uses memory, but ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    Frank Mabrey wrote:
     

    Are you sure you're running 5.0.5? The amount it's reporting is how
    much you would see with OpenServer 5.0.0 or 5.0.2, which had a 768MB
    memory limit. Also, 5.0.0 and 5.0.2 would only see 512MB unless you
    forced the issue with a "mem=" bootstring like you show; 5.0.4 and later
    will see the extra memory by default.

    The amount of RAM OpenServer sees is not at all limited by swap. The
    amount you can _use_ may be limited slightly if you have very little
    swap (it varies greatly depending on how your applications uses memory,
    but under typical conditions you will need your swap to be at least 1/4
    as big as your RAM to be able to use all of RAM).

    No single swap area can be larger than 4GB, though you can have multiple
    4GB swap areas. Before 5.0.6 behavior with >4GB swap was a bit
    unpredictable, so you should definitely reduce that to 4GB.
     

    Memory above 16MB cannot be reached by the old ISA DMA controller (which
    is still used by e.g. standard floppy drives). This is a hardware
    limitation; it's also of very little importance in 2003, when most
    devices that use DMA are PCI devices that have access to the full 4GB
    address space.
     
    Bela Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    In article <xNUqb.140443$Fm2.116918attbi_s04> "Frank Mabrey" <com> writes:
    $Have I run into some kind of undoented limit?

    Hmm ... the doentation for my copy of 5.0.5 says 512 MB.
    But the FAQ (http://aplawrence.com/SCOFAQ/scotec3.html#max_ram)
    says starting in 5.0.4 OSR5 can use up to 4 GB. I'm guessing that
    someone forgot to update the docs when they increased this limit.

    What happens if you omit the mem bootstring? Usually, you
    only use such a bootstring if boot isn't correctly enumerating your
    RAM.

    $Also, the man for mem says that, by default, RAM above 16m is not DMA. Is
    $this a restriction or a default? Could it be affecting my problem?

    This is an archaic limit for ISA cards. The ISA bus was designed
    for the IBM PC AT, which used an 80286 CPU. The 286 can only access
    16 MB of RAM, and therefore the ISA bus only has enough address lines
    (24) to access 16 MB of RAM. (Some microchannel cards have a similar
    limit.) The PCI bus has full 32-bit addressing capability and
    so it can access a full 4 GB of RAM.

    This doesn't affect how much memory can be recognized; it only
    affects how I/O is performed. The operating system will automatically
    work around this, if needed, by allocating some buffers in the first
    16 MB and copying data to/from them. This reduces performance when
    accessing such a device. Many PCs from the last several years don't
    even have ISA slots any more, though I think the floppy controller
    probably still suffers from this limit (but as it's a low-performance
    device that's no big deal).
    --
    Stephen M. Dunn <ca> [/ref][/ref]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
    Stephen Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    In article <com>,
    Bela Lubkin <com> wrote: 
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     
     

    On the standard Intel chips [not the Itaniums] isn't memory limited
    to 4GB unless the OS support PAE - Physical Address Extension?
    And if that's correct does the latest OSR5 support it. Just
    curious.

    Bill


    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    In article <com>, Bill Vermillion <com> wrote: 

    Yes.
     

    No, OpenServer doesn't use PAE. UnixWare does.

    John
    --
    John DuBois com KC6QKZ/AE http://www.armory.com/~spcecdt/
    John Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    (Frank Mabrey) 07.11.03 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:
     
     
     
     
     

    Yepp.

    Long time ago there were patches to fix this rediculous/surprising limit
    (for a (once) hi-end OS).
    But SCO decided to withdraw them, stating that they (the patches)
    cause problems...

    To get arround it you have to upgrade to at least 5.0.6 AFAIK.
    But you stay fixed at a 2GB file size limit...

    Maybe you like to have a look at "A.B.I." (see Tony's webpages)
    and can host you application under linux?

    Maybe it would be less "expensive" to migrade to Linux and Postgresql?
    And: What do think will happen to SCO next year?
    I remember very good that they once stopped development on
    OSR5 some time ago and resumed it with 5.0.7 mainly to introduce
    a new paying model...

    Rainer Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    Rainer Zocholl wrote:
     




    >
    > Yepp.
    >
    > Long time ago there were patches to fix this rediculous/surprising limit
    > (for a (once) hi-end OS).
    > But SCO decided to withdraw them, stating that they (the patches)
    > cause problems...[/ref]

    The patches were for OpenServer 5.0.0 and 5.0.2 only, and they _did_
    cause problems, they weren't anywhere near as stable as 5.0.4. Starting
    with OSR504 (shipped in mid-1997) OpenServer supports a full 4GB. (The
    patches for 500/502 only supported 2GB). Why are you upset that you can
    no longer get poorly functional patches for OSes that were superseded 6
    1/2 years ago?
     

    5.0.4. The original poster hasn't responded to my questioning his
    version number, which should not be 5.0.5 if he's topping out at 768MB.
     

    True.
     

    OpenServer development has not stopped at any time in the last 10 years.
    The company has had different ambitions for the OS and different numbers
    of people working on it, but never stopped. Right now, development is
    ramping up as we prepare to deliver the features promised at SCO Forum
    2003.
     
    Bela Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??

    Zounds! The disk I was using was 5.0.2. (red face)

    The messages from the boot never said what version was being booted. Of
    course the media disk doesn't either. Thanks to your suggestion I finally
    used "uname -X" to find my mistake.

    Thank you for your timely and comprehensive reply. I'd send you a cookie
    but internet cookies aren't really all that tasty.

    Frank

    "Bela Lubkin" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... [/ref]
    The [/ref]
    limiting [/ref]
    The 
    >
    > Are you sure you're running 5.0.5? The amount it's reporting is how
    > much you would see with OpenServer 5.0.0 or 5.0.2, which had a 768MB
    > memory limit. Also, 5.0.0 and 5.0.2 would only see 512MB unless you
    > forced the issue with a "mem=" bootstring like you show; 5.0.4 and later
    > will see the extra memory by default.
    >
    > The amount of RAM OpenServer sees is not at all limited by swap. The
    > amount you can _use_ may be limited slightly if you have very little
    > swap (it varies greatly depending on how your applications uses memory,
    > but under typical conditions you will need your swap to be at least 1/4
    > as big as your RAM to be able to use all of RAM).
    >
    > No single swap area can be larger than 4GB, though you can have multiple
    > 4GB swap areas. Before 5.0.6 behavior with >4GB swap was a bit
    > unpredictable, so you should definitely reduce that to 4GB.
    > [/ref]
    Is 
    >
    > Memory above 16MB cannot be reached by the old ISA DMA controller (which
    > is still used by e.g. standard floppy drives). This is a hardware
    > limitation; it's also of very little importance in 2003, when most
    > devices that use DMA are PCI devices that have access to the full 4GB
    > address space.
    > [/ref]


    Frank Guest

  8. #8

    Default OpenServer improvement? (was: Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??)

    (Bela Lubkin) 08.11.03 in /comp/unix/sco/misc:
     
     [/ref]
     

    Yepp "stopped" was a too hard word.

    But reduced to a minimum. (In 2000 you must have had the feeling
    that they have decided (internal) to let OSR die.)
     

    Ok, call it "different ambition" ;-)
    I have the impression that they did only the development
    that can't be avoided, meaning fixing "Class A" bugs.
     

    Approx. 2 years ago i only found on the hardware lists (HCL) machines which
    were at least 2 years not available anymore...no modern machines.

    Too i would assume that a "dedicated" high end server operating system
    should support 1Gbit ethernet in 2000.
    3 years ago the only way to use 1Gb was an (illegal) driver from
    the 3com site.
    Intel 1Gb was not supported at all.
    The 1Gb drivers by SCO are released no in Aug 2003! wow... approx. 5 Years
    development for a simple ethernet driver. But well,
    you are right, it is not stopped...;-)

    The OS had a lot of trouble with modern fast CPUs.
    But that's clear: The HCL tests stopped in (approx) 1998 at 200MHz,
    it's obvious that they never have tested > 400GHz machines
    until the customers began to complain...

    What date has the latest skunkware CD? AFAIK it's still 2000?


    I would not call that "development" i would call it "stagnation" ;-)


    Rainer Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: OpenServer improvement? (was: Re: RAM size limit for OpenServer 5.0.5??)

    In article <toppoint.de>,
    Rainer Zocholl <toppoint.de> wrote: [/ref]
     [/ref][/ref]
     [/ref][/ref]
     [/ref]
     
     

    I have no idea what they plan, but SCO was the last company to
    release a SysVR4 Unix - and that was Unixware. The OSR5 is
    based on SysVR3 but with nay SysVR4 things moved back to it, but
    there are some things that make no sense [from my POV] to even
    attempt moving them from a VR4 to a VR3.
     [/ref]
     
     
     

    When some of the limits of OSR5 became too much for a client I had
    on that platform I migrated them into the Unixware 7. Limits went
    away, performanc went up. They got big enough to hire anther
    person internally so I don't go back there anymore.

    Moving from a 300MHz world into a Dual Xeon with faster drives
    took one major weekly process from 2 hours to under 10 minutes.
    The performance was not all from the HW upgrades, but a more
    efficient OS.

    Bill

    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Guest

Similar Threads

  1. sharedobject size limit ?
    By fanno in forum Macromedia Flash Flashcom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 16th, 02:58 PM
  2. CF7 PDF Size Limit
    By CFLett in forum Macromedia ColdFusion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 7th, 06:43 PM
  3. limit directory size
    By Jörg Kleimann in forum Linux / Unix Administration
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 18th, 04:20 PM
  4. Container size limit
    By Bill Jaynes in forum FileMaker
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 15th, 07:41 AM
  5. 255 limit of field size
    By raj chahal in forum ASP
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 13th, 06:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •