If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim Anderson" wrote in message ...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message ... Rick writes: Looks like PCI Express is a staggering waste of memory space. Yes, PCI Express is the main guilty party here. But *why* does this address space have to be in the first 4GB? To maintain compatibility with OS's that are limited to 4GB. I came across this note in one of Intel's server motherboard manuals (which supports up to 8GB): ftp://download.intel.com/support/mot.../sp2gp2tps.pdf Note: Memory between 4GB and 4GB minus 512MB will not be accessible for use by the operating system and may be lost to the user, because this area is reserved for BIOS, APIC configuration space, PCI adapter interface, and virtual video memory space. This means that if 4GB of memory is installed, 3.5GB of this memory is usable. The chipset should allow the remapping of unused memory above the 4GB address, but this memory may not be accessible to an operating system that has a 4GB memory limit. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick" wrote in message
news 3.5GB of this memory is usable. The chipset should allow the remapping of unused memory above the 4GB address, but this memory may not be accessible to an operating system that has a 4GB memory limit. Yes, this is helpful. Thanks. So the proper question may be this: Why don't these 4GB boards remap this memory to make it usable by 64-bit operating systems? Tim |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"CBFalconer" wrote in message
... All of this deals with the physical addresses, not the virtual addresses that the software sees. Thanks Chuck. Can you expand on that last remark? How difficult would it be to make this wasted RAM available to the OS? For the board deisgner, that is. I'm not expecting any workaround for the motherboard I'm using. Tim |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Anderson wrote:
"Rick" wrote in message 3.5GB of this memory is usable. The chipset should allow the remapping of unused memory above the 4GB address, but this memory may not be accessible to an operating system that has a 4GB memory limit. Yes, this is helpful. Thanks. So the proper question may be this: Why don't these 4GB boards remap this memory to make it usable by 64-bit operating systems? Because it is an unnecessary expense. While there may be uses for addressing over 4GB to conveniently handle large databases etc., there is virtually no real need for that much actual memory. The function can be efficiently served by virtual memory systems at little performance cost. About the only area where I can conceive such real memory to be useful is in high performance video processing. -- Some informative links: news:news.announce.newusers http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Anderson wrote:
"CBFalconer" wrote in message All of this deals with the physical addresses, not the virtual addresses that the software sees. Thanks Chuck. Can you expand on that last remark? How difficult would it be to make this wasted RAM available to the OS? For the board deisgner, that is. I'm not expecting any workaround for the motherboard I'm using. If you don't install memory in a physical area it isn't wasted. Virtual memory systems involve remapping memory anyhow, so the software doesn't see any gaps. There is no real problem. -- Some informative links: news:news.announce.newusers http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"CBFalconer" wrote in message ...
Tim Anderson wrote: "Rick" wrote in message 3.5GB of this memory is usable. The chipset should allow the remapping of unused memory above the 4GB address, but this memory may not be accessible to an operating system that has a 4GB memory limit. Yes, this is helpful. Thanks. So the proper question may be this: Why don't these 4GB boards remap this memory to make it usable by 64-bit operating systems? Because it is an unnecessary expense. While there may be uses for addressing over 4GB to conveniently handle large databases etc., there is virtually no real need for that much actual memory. The function can be efficiently served by virtual memory systems at little performance cost. About the only area where I can conceive such real memory to be useful is in high performance video processing. Even for that, apps (at least if they're written properly) process smaller chunks of ram at a time. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
There are several other reasons for the 4GB limit:
o Historically, motherboards were limited by RAM VRM ---- lots of RAM sockets = lots of DIMMs = lots of watts = 30W+ ---- RAM VRMs are limited - indeed BTX tackles their cooling o Historically, memory is relatively expensive ---- PC industry focuses products around usage segments ---- multi-GB buyers tended to buy servers, not general PCs As always, the computer industry migrates downwards. Applications using multi-GB were once small & niche: o dBase servers = RAM determinant ---- more RAM = more index keys, more caching ---- contrast with slow electromechanical HD rotation & seek ---- however such PCs are 1) Servers 2) 64-bit o Photoshop production machines = RAM determinant ---- historically most pre-press is done on Apples ---- recently reinforced by the Dual G5 Apple re OS-X + 8GB+ ---- Photoshop on the PC has deteriorating benefit of 2GB Remember the focus of the IT industry: o Create as many interfaces with buyers as possible per unit time o Eg, CD, DVD, DVD-II speed & iteration, or mobile phone iterations So some limits are based on guesswork "no-one will need 640KB" and also one of creating a build-up of pressure for an obsolescence replacement cycle as opposed to the migratory upgrade cycle. So there are inherent assumptions in the PC architecture at work: o Hardware both "internal" & from plug-in devices needs address space ---- efficiency has not been great here - PCI-Express has high demands o Assumptions by the O/S come into play ---- XP may be based on NT, but it still makes relatively "old" assumptions A lot of the assumptions are still valid somewhat: o Most economic buyers of multi-GB = 64-bit = Dual-Opteron/Xeon64 Servers o Many multi-GB buyers are after somewhat niche machines ---- Apple Dual G5 -- re Photoshop pre-press ---- downsized *nix box -- re displacing IBM/SUN/SGI boxes o Eventually multi-GB buyers will migrate down to the commodity PC It comes down to usage/economics: o Yes CPUs can gobble memory vastly faster than a HD can move it ---- a typical RAID-10 array can manage 150MB/sec ---- a typical P4 CPU can manage 40x that on RAM to CPU transfers o In reality very few applications run into that as a bottleneck ---- it's a tail-end of the usage distribution - few buyers, high cost, low margin ---- an error is to assume it remains that way - it never does :-) Adding lots of memory to PCs has various electrical limitations, RAM VRM, and various electrical dependencies required to maintain a stable I/O system. That moves you away from mainstream buyer requirements re what they pay. -- Dorothy Bradbury www.dorothybradbury.co.uk for quiet NMB & Panaflo fans |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Dorothy Bradbury wrote: There are several other reasons for the 4GB limit: o Historically, motherboards were limited by RAM VRM ---- lots of RAM sockets = lots of DIMMs = lots of watts = 30W+ ---- RAM VRMs are limited - indeed BTX tackles their cooling o Historically, memory is relatively expensive ---- PC industry focuses products around usage segments ---- multi-GB buyers tended to buy servers, not general PCs Are we talking virtual address space or physical memory here? I think the latter. Processes on a 64 bit OS see the same huge address space no matter how much physical RAM you have. It's CPU and Mobo model implementation specific.) I just looked at amd.com and see that one of their Opteron chips has a 48 bit virtual address space and a 40 bit physical space. The amount of memory you need depends on the working set of your application mix. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I think the latter.
Yes - physical memory. The amount of memory you need depends on the working set of your application mix. Which currently still makes multi-GB requirements somewhat niche. Dbase servers, Photoshop pre-press - few boxes versus generic PCs. Some Photoshop filters do require physical RAM to be a quite high multiple of the image size for completion. Upgrading from 2GB to 4GB can be frustrating in that considerably less than 4GB is realisable. Still XP 2012 probably has some obscene memory requirements. -- Dorothy Bradbury |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Tim Anderson wrote:
The cheaper motherboards (ie. most of them) for P4 or Athlon 64 support a maximum of 4GB RAM, even if the motherboards and processors support the AMD64 extensions that can address sqillions of GB. On the other hand, more upmarket boards support more RAM - up to 24GB or maybe more - for Xeon and Opteron. If you buy one of these 4GB boards and install 4GB RAM, you don't get the use of all of it. The top of the 4GB address space gets shadowed by system functions such as PCI Express addressing. This is not just a small detail - typically you lose 1GB of your 4GB. See: http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?postid=152 I can't at the moment find a clear explanation of this. I understand about the shadowing, but the question of course is why a modern board can't use a higher range of addresses to make the full 4GB available to the OS. The manufacturers mutter about "PC Architecture", but then again they also make boards that *do* overcome this limit. With PAE, PC processors have been able to address more than 4GB for years. So why are we still running into this limit? Three reasons: 1) Chipset support 2) BIOS support 3) Application support Because we still have (or rather, had) a 32-bit virtual address space, and there are very few apps which can use PAE. Use of addresses above the 4GB mark requires a bit of fancy footwork from the OS, and memory above this limit cannot be used in a general-purpose way. For example, it cannot be shared among processes. Because of this, it has to be allocated/deallocated/mapped using a different API than the usual malloc() or whatever your language uses. Large database application and the like support PAE, but your normal "consumer" application does not, and hence all your consumer applications still have to fit into the original 4GB address space. On top of this, many chipsets simply do not support PAE. To support it, they must support mapping memory banks above the 4GB line, and some only support 32-bit addresses for bank base addresses. Finally, the motherboard manufacturer has to set up things correctly in the BIOS and due to the lack of demand for 4GB RAM in the consumer space, I suspect it hasn't been at the top of their list. With a larger virtual address space (and the larger physical address space for PCIe), most of these problems are removed. I don't know about support in NF4 and other chipsets (manufacturers won't even tell you the most basic interface details nowadays ) but given the NF4 Pro motherboards support a large address space, I suspect it's more of a BIOS issue than anything. -- Michael Brown www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
overcoming the 300 gigabyte limit | || | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | February 2nd 05 03:30 AM |
Controller that allows drives over 137gb limit?? | John Barrington | General | 4 | June 22nd 04 11:10 AM |
Somewhat off-topic...Customizing the TIF limit for Internet Explorer | MovieFan3093 | Dell Computers | 2 | October 23rd 03 03:22 AM |
Temporary Internet Files limit | HistoryFan | Dell Computers | 3 | October 16th 03 03:32 PM |
Limit to processor speed? | ZITBoy | General | 33 | September 17th 03 12:46 AM |