[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] Size of /proc/kcore
- To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [LUG] Size of /proc/kcore
- From: Dan Dart <dandart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:21:27 +0100
- Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TUH55ZHDQD3JUaYGIvi6yGiBrkXrIFWSSVlZ/c6Iv18=; b=BjUCR19Sp6c5j5180Xf2+8KU14zq1UrHR295rYcSpoOc2DITT3weavRzgGoYdAmEk0 2xri+qkKEsxvrOirr7fRmQwWhA4WO3WrzOcu5MQJgm+b267FgShUFH5q9/w/cl0vwEuy 3dgCajvLe9GMLZRmeSL3oQPL7mTRUMnvpOPZY=
I just noticed the other day when looking for very large files.
I thought "WTF? 128T? Is this a mistake?"
Unless it's some sort of power of 2, 128TiB = 2^47...
Isn't that half of the total available for 48-bit memory addresses?
I noticed something about 48-bit memory in the kernel (was it 48 bits
physical, 48 bits virtual or something?)
Running 2.6.35.4 on AMD64.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
