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 376435 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.
  • 0 in reply to dark moon

    I've just installed this same version to a Hyper-V VM and the memory is showing as 6GB (almost).

  • 0 in reply to NashBrydges

    It all depends on your memory map. You'll never have the full 6G there even on a 6G vm.

    cat /proc/iomem | grep "System RAM" 

    and add up the sizes of the ranges it should be very close to what's above.

    If it the last memory area ends at ‭17FFFFFFF‬ that's the impact of mem=6G kicking in

     

    Basically this problem impacts anyone that has a bios/uefi that remaps large chunks of their memory beyond the 4G barrier.

    In my case on my hardware. There's about 2G of my 8G of memory below the 4G mark, and the remaining 6G starts at the 4G memory address, so that's why i get less that 4G usable on an 8G system.

     

  • +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

    Hey,

    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?

  • 0 in reply to tom greene

    Roll on mr5, currently getting down to 400mb free, another 500mb would be a safety overhead.

  • 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 lferrara

    I am also having the same issue. I have 8GB and it is only showing 4 gb.

     

    If there is a palce to make suggestions I would love it if it could be increased to 8GB. Homes with a NAS and that do heavy gaming or streaming will use up the memory depending on how enthusiastic they (we) are.