Article View: comp.os.os2.misc
Article #17527Re: RAM > 64Mb.. is this normal ?
From: Andrew Gierth
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 00:00
55 lines
2821 bytes
2821 bytes
> In article <844098206snz129.os2.7@artin.glassnet.com>, > Clive Humble <chumble@glassnet.com> wrote: >> >> Hi chaps, >> >> >> I've just added a few more chips to my PC. >> ... >> *********** System Information Tool - *********** >> *********** Installed Memory Amounts *********** >> Memory Amounts by Operating System >> Total amount memory detected by OS/2 : 97,900 Kilobytes >> Total bytes of memory locked by OS/2 : 8,772 Kilobytes >> Total amount of virtual memory free : 651,456 Kilobytes >> Page size of memory : 4,096 Bytes >> Memory Amounts by Type >> Base Memory : 640 Kilobytes >> Total Usable : 65,152 Kilobytes >> Extended Memory : 64,512 Kilobytes >> System Board Memory : 65,152 Kilobytes >> Cacheable Memory : 65,152 Kilobytes >> *********** System Information Tool - *********** >> >> What's with the 'Total amount detected' and the last three >> stats..? ... >> What's with the 'Memory address about 16 Mb' >> Is something amiss ? Do I bring my box down to 64Mb and buy another >> kite with the 'lost' 32Mb..? Here's the deal with PC memory: Memory above 1MB can't be addressed in real mode (but this is not an issue on an OS/2 system). Memory above 16MB can't be addressed by certain types of ISA cards (e.g. most AT-bus SCSI controllers), since the AT bus has only 24 address lines. (This is not a problem for EISA or PCI cards.) Memory above 64MB often isn't cacheable without upgrading the cache chips on the motherboard (this fact is often buried deep in the documentation, if mentioned at all). Those are the reasons why those limits keep cropping up. As to whether your additional 32MB is being used, I would suspect from the figures above that it isn't, presumably due to being non-cacheable. -- Andrew Gierth (andrewg@microlise.co.uk) "Ceterum censeo Microsoftam delendam esse" - Alain Knaff in nanam
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<ufbuenmnkj.fsf@zen.microlise.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<844098206snz129.os2.7@artin.glassnet.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1044c2,66705ab72eae6e87 X-Google-Attributes: gid1044c2,public X-Google-Thread: 104dc3,66705ab72eae6e87 X-Google-Attributes: gid104dc3,public From: andrewg@microlise.co.uk (Andrew Gierth) Subject: Re: RAM > 64Mb.. is this normal ? Date: 1996/10/01 Message-ID: <ufbuenmnkj.fsf@zen.microlise.co.uk> X-Deja-AN: 186363191 x-geek: (V3.1) x-nntp-posting-host: microl.demon.co.uk references: <844098206snz129.os2.7@artin.glassnet.com> cc: Clive Humble <chumble@glassnet.com> x-mayan-date: Long count = 12.19.3.9.13; tzolkin = 5 Ben; haab = 16 Chen organization: Microlise Engineering Ltd. x-attribution: AG newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,demon.ip.support.os2