Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!fsc2086!jim
From: jim@tiamat.FSC.COM (Jim O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: Looking at Pathalias and Xenix
Summary: 386 xenix shouldn't have any major memory limitations
Message-ID: <213@tiamat.FSC.COM>
Date: 11 Jan 89 16:45:17 GMT
References: <6608@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <206@libove.UUCP> <404@ispi.UUCP>
Organization: Filtration Sciences Corp., Chattanooga, TN
Lines: 23

In article <404@ispi.UUCP>, jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes:
> In article <1989Jan9.134250.27793@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> =>I think it hits the top of memory (my system has 2048K, with 1402K as
> =>the maximum user process size) and tries to swap. Maybe it is a system bug.
> =
> =Well, I have 3.5M.  Perhaps that's it.
> 
> Funny.  I have pathalias working on a 2 meg machine.  It currently
> takes about 10-15 minutes to chew on the maps, but it works fine. 
> Perhaps it is the fact it is running on a 386 that makes it work.

If you are running Xenix 386 with a decent swap area, you're maximum user
process size could be as large as several MB  (I've got 2 meg ram and a
max user proc size of over 5 meg due to large swap area; call it paranoia).
That's the beauty of demand-paged virtual memory.

It's only the 80286 machines (or perhaps 386 machines running 286 Xenix) that
have these major memory problems.

--jim
------------- 
James B. O'Connor			jim@FSC.COM
Filtration Sciences Corporation		615/821-4022 x. 651