Did the RAM limits change for Home edition for 16.05.2 to 4GB?

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.

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    I have just upgraded a Test VM from 16.05.1.MR-1 to 16.05.3.MR3.SFW-183

    VM had 2 CPUs and 8GB assigned to it. (VMWorkstation)

     

     

    last reboot and look - Memory limit has changed! Sophos, I find it hard that you cannot replicate this issue, even in a VM Environment.

     

     

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    sachingurung
    Hi All,

    We haven't received any volunteer to provide us both, Access ID and the SSH access to their appliance for investigation. Our Dev Team cannot really proceed further until we find a machine to troubleshoot, that has this issue ongoing.

    Thanks

    I am in my second day of using XG, not sure what an access ID is or where to get it, but if you DM me instructions I will provide for my bridge mode XG running on tin.

  • In reply to BrianHawkins1:

    BrianHawkins1
    I just messaged them and offered to give remote access.

    Did they take your offer and actually look?   Any feedback?  .. at least acknowledging that there is a problem.

    Thanks!

  • In reply to DavidWilliams1:

    Yes they are looking into it, I just enabled SSH on my WAN so they could connect, I had already given them support token access last week.

     

    Brian

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    Hey

    Any updates on this issue from Sophos, its been a long time and the issue has not been resolved. 

  • In reply to tom greene:

    I've given up on Sophos for a couple reasons now so sorry I won't be able to help anymore. I am reinstalling my firewall with OPNSense soon as i'm done posting this.

    One being although i have a compatible atheros 9K(AR9462) card installed it won't use it. I can modprobe and get the interface wlan0 interface to show but nothing sees it.

    Two being the incredibly slow response to fixing an issue that i gave a COMPLETE explanation on a month or so ago. 

    Only thing i'll miss is the better antivirus defs, but that's life. 

     

    I wish you all well. It really is a decent product but i've been disappointed with it's limits on my own firewall system.

     

     

     

  • 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).

  • 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.

     

  • 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-

  • 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?

  • In reply to tom greene:

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

  • 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.

  • 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-

  • 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.

  • In reply to sachingurung:

    sachingurung

    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.