[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Added more memory. Not useable???



On Sat, 2 May 2009 10:26:45 -0400 (EDT)
mark@neidorff.com wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> My machine has been mostly updated to lenny from etch.  When etch was
> installed, I had 2 Gig of ram.
> 
> I use virtualbox to run a guest OS.  I felt that the memory that I could
> allocate to the guest was insufficient (too much swapping) so I added 2
> Gig more of ram (same brand and model of ram as the original).  The memory
> is recognized at boot just fine.
> 

If this is not inside your virtual machine then linux sees only 1GB of ram for
some reason. I thought that it should recognize 2 so this is strange. In any
case, if you want to use 4gb of ram you should use a 64bit kernel (amd64
kernel). Try intalling that and see if it helps. It should run with the rest of
the system running 32bit at least as a start.

> This is the contents of /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal:       906792 kB
> MemFree:        349352 kB
> Buffers:        101224 kB
> Cached:         203496 kB
> SwapCached:          0 kB
> Active:         203744 kB
> Inactive:       185136 kB
> HighTotal:           0 kB
> HighFree:            0 kB
> LowTotal:       906792 kB
> LowFree:        349352 kB
> SwapTotal:     2931820 kB
> SwapFree:      2931820 kB
> Dirty:             404 kB
> Writeback:           0 kB
> AnonPages:       84180 kB
> Mapped:          50976 kB
> Slab:           151092 kB
> PageTables:       1716 kB
> NFS_Unstable:        0 kB
> Bounce:              0 kB
> CommitLimit:   3385216 kB
> Committed_AS:   218696 kB
> VmallocTotal:   122576 kB
> VmallocUsed:     47516 kB
> VmallocChunk:    70344 kB
> 
> As I understand what I am reading, I have (about) 1 Gig allocated as
> system memory and (about) 3 Gig allocated as swap.  How do I change this
> so that I can increase the amount of ram allocated to the virtual machine?
>  I tried just increasing the allocation in the configuration of the
> virtual machine, but the virtual machine just hung.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 


Reply to: