[THIN] Re: ram

interesting stuff.  i have some homework to do.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Michael Pardee <pardeemp@gmail.com> wrote:

Greg, for some reason I remember getting all excited about the /PAE switch and then getting let down later.  I can't remember if it was due to page pool or PTEs, but something stopped us (Although that may have been McAfee).  Another interesting thing we saw was that Outlook 2003 would not open a PST file when the server actually saw the full 4GB of RAM.  I had to /burnmem a little of it to make Outlook open those files.  Not sure if that was fixed in a later SP or not, but I gave up and went full speed ahead to 64 bit.

Didn't /PAE make the 32 bit OS operate in 36 bit or something like that?  Like I said, its been a while, but I did just recently read this article: http://community.citrix.com/blogs/citrite/danielf/2008/08/04/PAE+This!!!+Optimizing+XenApp

Some have it work out just fine, but I never had that much luck.

On Aug 31, 2008, at 10:20 PM, Greg Reese wrote:

the /PAE switch? 

this is what i get for burying myself in 64bit servers for the past two years.

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@gmail.com> wrote:

Because the system is sucking up a bunch of it before the OS starts  (PCI-X, video, etc)…  You can get some of it back by using the /PAE switch (yes, even on standard) to map that memory back.

 

Joe

 

From: thin-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:thin-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Greg Reese
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2008 7:01 PM
To: Thin
Subject: [THIN] ram

 

why would a server have 4096mb of ram installed but only report 3455mb installed?  i am looking over some servers for a friend of mine and this seems odd.