Prev: stupid fan question
Next: Looking for cpu fan for 478
From: coltrane on 16 May 2010 00:37 On 5/15/2010 4:10 PM, Barry Watzman wrote: > Something in your system is likely limiting you to 32-bit operation > (most likely either the CPU or the OS). This is 4GB. But the hardware > REQUIRES some memory space, which means that all of the 4GB of memory > space cannot be occupied by RAM memory; some of it is used by other > devices (BIOS, motherboard, sound card, network card, video card). You > show what's left, and perhaps only the part of what's left that is > contiguous from address zero to the first address used by any hardware > device. Which is normally about 3GB. > > The only way to get more is to use a 64-bit system. In particular that > means a 64-bit CPU (most are) and a 64-bit OS (most are not). > > Now, that said, note that: > > 1. If you go the 64 bit route, expect some compatibility issues. > Possibly very serious and not resolveable. > > 2. If you go the 64-bit route, DO NOT expect to see any benefits; for > most people, 3GB of RAM is more than they need. Are there exceptions? > Sure, lots of them (and more everyday). BUT, that doesn't change the > fact that for probably more than 80% of people, there is no real benefit > to a 64 bit system with more than 3GB of available RAM memory. > > > > > coltrane wrote: >> this might be more of a generic mainboard question but that group >> doesn't seem active. >> I have an asus p7p55d-e mb running windows xp. I have 2 G.Skill 2GB >> sticks. Sandra correctly shows 2 X 2GB, but when I view the amount of >> memory in the system properties window it shows 2.99 GB. >> I have also run RightMark Memory Stability test and that shows 2047GB >> total memory with available physical of 2047GB. >> so my question is where did my memory go ( too young for Alzheimers! ) >> >> >> thanks >> john thanks, I would like to run a test version of oracle on my system which eats a lot of resources john
From: DevilsPGD on 16 May 2010 01:43 In message <4beeed81$0$31276$607ed4bc(a)cv.net> coltrane <tendengarci(a)yahoo.com> was claimed to have wrote: >I remember the issue of video card memory space from 35 years ago. I >thought that problem would have been addressed by now. It has been addressed, it's called x64.
From: Barry Watzman on 16 May 2010 03:33 Resource may, but does not automatically, = memory. I don't know if it's an application that would particularly benefit from a "lot" of memory or not. It may well be. coltrane wrote: > thanks, I would like to run a test version of oracle on my system which > eats a lot of resources > john
From: Rob on 20 May 2010 08:06
"coltrane" <tendengarci(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4bef7668$0$22346$607ed4bc(a)cv.net... > On 5/15/2010 4:10 PM, Barry Watzman wrote: >> Something in your system is likely limiting you to 32-bit operation >> (most likely either the CPU or the OS). This is 4GB. But the hardware >> REQUIRES some memory space, which means that all of the 4GB of memory >> space cannot be occupied by RAM memory; some of it is used by other >> devices (BIOS, motherboard, sound card, network card, video card). You >> show what's left, and perhaps only the part of what's left that is >> contiguous from address zero to the first address used by any hardware >> device. Which is normally about 3GB. >> >> The only way to get more is to use a 64-bit system. In particular that >> means a 64-bit CPU (most are) and a 64-bit OS (most are not). >> >> Now, that said, note that: >> >> 1. If you go the 64 bit route, expect some compatibility issues. >> Possibly very serious and not resolveable. >> >> 2. If you go the 64-bit route, DO NOT expect to see any benefits; for >> most people, 3GB of RAM is more than they need. Are there exceptions? >> Sure, lots of them (and more everyday). BUT, that doesn't change the >> fact that for probably more than 80% of people, there is no real benefit >> to a 64 bit system with more than 3GB of available RAM memory. >> >> >> >> >> coltrane wrote: >>> this might be more of a generic mainboard question but that group >>> doesn't seem active. >>> I have an asus p7p55d-e mb running windows xp. I have 2 G.Skill 2GB >>> sticks. Sandra correctly shows 2 X 2GB, but when I view the amount of >>> memory in the system properties window it shows 2.99 GB. >>> I have also run RightMark Memory Stability test and that shows 2047GB >>> total memory with available physical of 2047GB. >>> so my question is where did my memory go ( too young for Alzheimers! ) >>> >>> >>> thanks >>> john > thanks, I would like to run a test version of oracle on my system which > eats a lot of resources > john Database performance is often more disk access speed dependent than on available RAM. If you only have one physical hard disk, adding a second one would probably help. Even better would be a striping RAID disk subsystem, but there's a lot involved in setting that up properly. You could use RAID 0 for testing purposes, or 4 drives in RAID 10 for data integrity in case of a drive failure. Your motherboard can support these modes. I use a P6TD deluxe with 2xSSD in RAID0 as system drive and 4x2TB in RAID10 as data drives under Win7 x64. I can tell you that performance is stunning, but it didn't come cheap, unfortunately. 32-bit applications running in emulation mode under the 64-bit environment do seem to have more memory available than the usual 3.x GB than 32-bit XP let them access. HTH, -- Rob |