Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Verified Answer
  • +9 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 130 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 52 subscribers
  • Views 376386 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Did the RAM limits change for Home edition for 16.05.2 to 4GB?

MichaelHigginson

Did the limits for RAM on Home edition get changed with SFOS 16.05.2 MR2? I'm only seeing 4GB after update. Still only showing 4GB after rolling back to SFOS 16.05.1 MR-1. I was seeing 6GB usable before upgrade.



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Ok so I did a test upgrade from 16.01.3 to 16.05.1 to 16.05.2 on a virtual machine with 8GB of ram to try and simulate what those with physical HW with greater than 6GB are seeing. For those who are using virtual appliances running 16.05.2 try taking a snapshot/checkpoint and increasing your VMs memory to 8GB.

     

    Here's what 16.01.3 looks like booting up with 8GB of RAM.

    Here's its boot params


    16.05.1 boot after upgrade from 16.01.3

    its boot params

    16.05.2 boot image. Note on this one it first showed 8000MB, but as soon as I tried to sign into the cmdline the system rebooted and then showed 4968MB.

    Here's what 16.05.2 boot params look like after I was able to get signed in. To me it seems like before this release there wasn't a check/restriction being set but now with 16.05.2 it is doing a restriction via those kernel boot params. For whatever reason they're not getting applied correctly.

  • 0 in reply to MichaelHigginson

    Yep this is a very visual representation of what i was saying. As soon as the mem=6G was added the memory gets mapped out of use. i'm thinking it might be more of a rehash of the memory hole for device drivers issue than a PCI address collision as i didn't see anything about a collision in the boot messages

    There might be other ways to limit available memory like memmap= instead of mem= but obviously from our side we can't play with the kernel options.

    trying to get exactly 6G into a system is going to be hard. I think a 6GB dimm or 2 x 3GB dimms are hard to come by. I'm not a big fan of running mismatched dimms(2G+4G)

     

Reply
  • 0 in reply to MichaelHigginson

    Yep this is a very visual representation of what i was saying. As soon as the mem=6G was added the memory gets mapped out of use. i'm thinking it might be more of a rehash of the memory hole for device drivers issue than a PCI address collision as i didn't see anything about a collision in the boot messages

    There might be other ways to limit available memory like memmap= instead of mem= but obviously from our side we can't play with the kernel options.

    trying to get exactly 6G into a system is going to be hard. I think a 6GB dimm or 2 x 3GB dimms are hard to come by. I'm not a big fan of running mismatched dimms(2G+4G)

     

Children
No Data