![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/e2e886925c5420ff8c2352fd293dd71d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
This is funny,
when running top (suse 8.2 , yadda, yadda, yadda ;) ) it shows me
top - 09:55:24 up 35 min, 5 users, load average: 0.98, 0.88, 0.73
Tasks: 97 total, 1 running, 96 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 18.5% user, 4.5% system, 0.0% nice, 77.0% idle
Mem: 2068184k total, 2018772k used, 49412k free, 552k buffers
Swap: 2104504k total, 543136k used, 1561368k free, 310808k cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ Command
2050 autotest 15 0 2099m 1.6g 17m D 39.7 79.4 20:22.31 invbatch
(As well as a bunch of other stuff).
But what strikes me as odd is the size of the executable ..
2099 M of memory (yes, I knew it was going to be big)
That is more than 2G (2048M),
and I was under the impression that under linux it was/is not possible to
allocate more than 2G of memory (due to the 32bits of the ia32
architecture).
[whenever I say Linux in the above, Im implying lrunning linux on an IS32
architecture . I know you can allocate much more memroy on different
hardware ;) ]
But anyway,
was I mistaken ?
Can you actually allocate (and use) more than 2G under Linux ?
Is this a suse 8.2/glibc feature ?
or is it a bug in top, and is this an indication that I have allocated
2099000000000 bytes (which is less than 2147483648)
Currently listening to: Smashing Pumpkins - Tonite, Tonite (MJATIM Boot)
Gerhard,
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/7ce72c46b6ab41ad3bb822a75c7ea410.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
* Gerhard den Hollander (gerhard@jasongeo.com) [030425 00:00]: -> ->But what strikes me as odd is the size of the executable .. ->2099 M of memory (yes, I knew it was going to be big) ->That is more than 2G (2048M), ->and I was under the impression that under linux it was/is not possible to ->allocate more than 2G of memory (due to the 32bits of the ia32 ->architecture). -> ->[whenever I say Linux in the above, Im implying lrunning linux on an IS32 ->architecture . I know you can allocate much more memroy on different ->hardware ;) ] -> ->But anyway, ->was I mistaken ? ->Can you actually allocate (and use) more than 2G under Linux ? ->Is this a suse 8.2/glibc feature ? ->or is it a bug in top, and is this an indication that I have allocated ->2099000000000 bytes (which is less than 2147483648) Of course you can. There are X86 mainboards that MSI makes that will take up to 12G of RAM. It's not Linux that has the issue. It's the X86-ia32 arch that has it but there are kludges that Intel has introduced that get around this. Currently 4GB is the limit that most X86 mainboards will take but Linux can handle much more. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I'll tell you what you should see.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/e2e886925c5420ff8c2352fd293dd71d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
* Ben Rosenberg
* Gerhard den Hollander (gerhard@jasongeo.com) [030425 00:00]: -> ->But what strikes me as odd is the size of the executable .. ->2099 M of memory (yes, I knew it was going to be big) ->That is more than 2G (2048M), ->and I was under the impression that under linux it was/is not possible to ->allocate more than 2G of memory (due to the 32bits of the ia32 ->architecture). -> ->[whenever I say Linux in the above, Im implying lrunning linux on an IS32 ->architecture . I know you can allocate much more memroy on different ->hardware ;) ] -> ->But anyway, ->was I mistaken ? ->Can you actually allocate (and use) more than 2G under Linux ? ->Is this a suse 8.2/glibc feature ? ->or is it a bug in top, and is this an indication that I have allocated ->2099000000000 bytes (which is less than 2147483648)
Of course you can. There are X86 mainboards that MSI makes that will take up to 12G of RAM. It's not Linux that has the issue. It's the X86-ia32 arch that has it but there are kludges that Intel has introduced that get around this. Currently 4GB is the limit that most X86 mainboards will take but Linux can handle much more.
Sorry, I was not clear enough in my post I guess. I mean handle more than 2G **per process** I know there are the -64G kernels which allow you/linux ia32 to address up to 64G of ram+swap. Im interested in the per-process limit Kind regards, -- Gerhard den Hollander Phone :+31-10.280.1515 Global IT Support manager Direct:+31-10.280.1539 Jason Geosystems BV Fax :+31-10.280.1511 (When calling please note: we are in GMT+1) gdenhollander@jasongeo.com POBox 1573 visit us at http://www.jasongeo.com 3000 BN Rotterdam JASON.......#1 in Reservoir Characterization The Netherlands This e-mail and any attachment is/are intended solely for the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, we request that you do not disseminate, forward, distribute or copy this e-mail message. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and destroy the original message.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/fd74ba9928b5d6d9e5392e0f53341f62.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
I mean handle more than 2G **per process**
I know there are the -64G kernels which allow you/linux ia32 to address up to 64G of ram+swap.
Im interested in the per-process limit
4GB per process, split 3:1 between user space and kernel space. -- "...our desktop is falling behind stability-wise and feature wise to KDE ...when I went to Mexico in December to the facility where we launched gnome, they had all switched to KDE3." - Miguel de Icaza, March 2003
participants (3)
-
Ben Rosenberg
-
Derek Fountain
-
Gerhard den Hollander