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 376460 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. 

  • 0 in reply to sachingurung

    I am well aware you are using mem= option of the kernel. That is the SOURCE of the problem. It's nice to see someone finally admit that they know it's the problem.

    So unless you've modified/calculated the mem= value above 6GB for anyone that has a large chunk of their memory remapped starting at 4GB based on the kernel memory map, or used some other memory limiting technique this HAS NOT been fixed.

    Please provide more details on what EXACTLY was done instead of making us wait to just find out the problem may not have been corrected, which will then start a whole new cycle of waiting.

    Many of us here are technical and can understand any response that development can provide.

     

    Thanks.

  • 0 in reply to Kevin Brierly

    tom greene said:

    Thanks for the great news but since we are still on MR3 right now, it seems that MR5 is still a long way to go. Any ETA on MR5?


    They promised to release a Maintenance Release each month. MR4 was released as per yesterday, so MR5 should be released somwhere end of next month.


    Billybob said:

    Kevin Brierly 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?

    I guess, Home Edition is not covered by deep QA and automated Testing. This is somehow understandable, because Sophos provides this Version for free. At this point I somehow have to protect sophos. The only thing could be improved, is they could have reacted faster, and have the problem solved within 1 MR and nod within 3.

  • 0 in reply to HuberChristian

    MR4 was available on my XG Home Edition this morning... Already upgraded and running fine...

     

Reply Children