From: coltrane on
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
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
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

"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


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: stupid fan question
Next: Looking for cpu fan for 478