From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FOT3P-0007Pb-Qd for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:17:12 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with SMTP id k2T5Ev7W018478; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:14:57 GMT Received: from ender.volumehost.net (adsl-69-154-123-202.dsl.fyvlar.swbell.net [69.154.123.202]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2T59Ofv012369 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:09:24 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3420B6BE for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ender.volumehost.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ender.volumehost.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32527-12 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ath600 (ip70-178-169-79.ks.ks.cox.net [70.178.169.79]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ender.volumehost.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 554A66B13 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:09:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Zac Slade To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] chroot Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 23:09:20 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060327181432.5c45250b@keelie.localdomain> <20060327214333.2c07c6b0@keelie.localdomain> <200603272322.06654.bss03@volumehost.net> In-Reply-To: <200603272322.06654.bss03@volumehost.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603282309.20693.krakrjak@volumehost.net> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at volumehost.net X-Archives-Salt: f64f1b28-4dd5-4ef0-8742-86f96b821c8b X-Archives-Hash: d6e925c4a9fd5a788c800dffb80a826b On Monday 27 March 2006 23:21, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." wrote: > > > Yes, that's an option to, although with more than ~768K of ram it's > > > not ideal. Maybe not ideal (especially on 64-bit processors) it is more than possible to address a lot of memory (damn I forget the numbers, I think 64G). > > Why is that? I thought 32-bit should have no problems addressing > > 2GB? Yes you can. It will be slower than native 48-bit address modes from 64-bit processors, but not a large overhead at all (and the code mostly stays in cache). You will need to select 3G/1G split to access the full 2GB you have in your system. I have 1.5G and have to use 2G/2G to address all of mine. > Plus, with a 64-bit kernel, it'll have access to the 64-bit specific > registers. :) That is a much larger benefit than most people give it credit for. Almost double the registers! -- Zac Slade krakrjak@volumehost.net ICQ:1415282 YM:krakrjak AIM:ttyp99 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list