On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 08:08:22AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Anders Fugmann (afu@fiaif.net) wrote:
> > Gabriel Ebner wrote:
> > >On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 10:46:05AM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> > >gebner@schnecke2 ~ [0] $ grep 'address sizes' /proc/cpuinfo
> > >address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> >
> > Does anyone know why there is a limitation of 48 bits on the virtual
> > address space, and if it is technically possible to have a 64 bit
> > address space on the AMD64 architecture?
>
> Uh, well, 2^48 is 256TB, I believe. You need more than that?
I remember seeing somewhere a report that AMD would be extending
the bits for the (physical and virtual) address spaces in later
revisions of the processors. Presumably by the time we actually get to
needing petabyte address spaces, the processors will be able to cope.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- "Your problem is that you have a negative personality." ---
"No, I don't!"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature