liquorix and BigMem?
HeSaid
Status: New User - Welcome
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Florida, USA
Reply Quote
My wife and I are retired and we love facebook to keep in touch with our kids, grandchildren and friends as well as playing flash-based games.

We use only sidux on our 3 laptops and netbook. I have very recently installed 2.6.35-0.dmz.1-liquorix-686 and find it to be responsive playing flash games. However, two of our laptops have more than 2GB of RAM which goes un-used with the liquorix kernel. The Debian "bigmem" kernels recognize the memory between 2.5 and 4 GB.

What kernel parameter changes are suggested in liquorix kernels to have the extended memory recognized and used? Thanks.
--
Neal

EDIT:
64-bit sidux with nspluginwrapper is not an option. We tried it... Playing flash games on facebook with 32-bit libs on 64bit sytstem is like a fish swimming through Jello. too slow to enjoy compared to 32bit native system.
Back to top
damentz
Status: Assistant
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 737
Reply Quote
I could enable PAE and market Liquorix as a faster kernel for newer CPUs, but there's a large base of users that use Liquorix on their old computers. Enabling PAE will probably surprise more than a handful of users and cause endless frustration, something that I would dislike very much myself.

It could be that I'm overestimating the problem and it's probably safe to change this. Due to the way kernels are updated, I should be able to change this setting and upload a new kernel then wait for feedback.
Back to top
techAdmin
Status: Site Admin
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 3895
Location: East Coast, West Coast? I know it's one of them.
Reply Quote
HeSaid, it's virtually certain that you NEVER will use that extra ram that PAE would enable, so this really is just an idea about ram, and has no reflection on reality.

It's almost impossible to use more than 2 gig ram unless you run virtual machines, plural, or if you use heavy video editing or graphics processing, and I mean very heavy.

You can always check your ram use with top or htop, and you'll notice that you're not even close to the 2 gig limit, and even that isn't really accurate, since htop/top reports some ram as used which is, if I remember right, not truly in use.

But it would be a bad idea, as damentz notes, to make the kernel unusable for users who do need it to be the same, in order to enable a feature which you don't even actually need.

To give you a rough idea, I'm running dual monitors, with 8 virtual desktops, firefox right now probably has 80 tabs open, I have about 10 konquerors open, with tabs on them too, 6 kate sessions, each with over 30 or 40 files open, plus a variety of other things, and I'm using.... 1256 mB ram.

So the notion that you are somehow 'missing out' on something with your very very light use pattern is simply incorrect.
Back to top
HeSaid
Status: New User - Welcome
Joined: 09 Sep 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Florida, USA
Reply Quote
@damentz
Thank you for the thought to enable 64GB PAE, but, please, do not do so on my account. No need to introduce problems to those machines that do not have that capability.

@h2
Thank you for your reply. It is a notion, and just a notion, that it would be nice to have the 'extra' RAM enabled. I confirm that I have never seen even half of the accessible 2.45 GB used.
--
Neal
Back to top
macaddict
Status: New User - Welcome
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 2
Reply Quote
Yes, PAE would be excellent. Looks like I may need to grab .config file and try a build myself of this excellent kernel.

I've 8GB of RAM and it's a shame to not have the extra 4GB available. Running Opera, FF4b8 and VirtualBox at the same time can easily use 3GB of RAM at any given time so I'd like to have more available.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   

All times are GMT - 8 Hours