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 376452 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
  • +2

    Hi All,

    Thank you for your patience. We are finally able to investigate the issue on an affected Home User and this is mentioned in NC-18497.

    It has been fixed in v16.05.MR5 (future MR release).

    Cheers-

  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    Any details on the actual fix? I.e. adjusting mem= or some other method? Just Curious to see what was done.

  • 0 in reply to Kevin Brierly

    To restrict memory we used mem option of the kernel. This option limits max address not the memory in case of x86.

    Cheers-

  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    no change in mr4. I could do with the extra 500-600mb of ram because occasionally the system reports 400mb left.

  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    sachingurung said:

    To restrict memory we used mem option of the kernel. This option limits max address not the memory in case of x86.

     and others have been saying this since the introduction of the problem while you guys didn't want to admit it. Can you please look into this further and find out how someone googled mem option for linux kernel and then included it in one of the MR releases without ANY QA testing or knowing the ramifications of such action?

    You guys are not running an open source project from home where untested changes are acceptable to end users. Please provide some more information on the thinking behind this change and who signed off on this. Were any of the kernel devs consulted before making such changes? Are there any devs that work on the kernel or are you passing a generic kernel recompiled with whichever switches someone thinks is interesting?

    P.S. Sorry to rant sachin, you are a good guy but this is so beneath you guys and I have to constantly keep on repeating Sophos is better than this. 

Reply
  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    sachingurung said:

    To restrict memory we used mem option of the kernel. This option limits max address not the memory in case of x86.

     and others have been saying this since the introduction of the problem while you guys didn't want to admit it. Can you please look into this further and find out how someone googled mem option for linux kernel and then included it in one of the MR releases without ANY QA testing or knowing the ramifications of such action?

    You guys are not running an open source project from home where untested changes are acceptable to end users. Please provide some more information on the thinking behind this change and who signed off on this. Were any of the kernel devs consulted before making such changes? Are there any devs that work on the kernel or are you passing a generic kernel recompiled with whichever switches someone thinks is interesting?

    P.S. Sorry to rant sachin, you are a good guy but this is so beneath you guys and I have to constantly keep on repeating Sophos is better than this. 

Children
No Data