Is anyone running 128GB of RAM? I understand that OS X will only use 96GB, however other OSs can see the entire 128GB. My concern is, if OS X sees 128 but can only utilize 96GB, will this lead to system instability in OS X?
Thanks
Thanks
Is anyone running 128GB of RAM? I understand that OS X will only use 96GB, however other OSs can see the entire 128GB. My concern is, if OS X sees 128 but can only utilize 96GB, will this lead to system instability in OS X?
Thanks
Ooh, clever! I'd love to know if this works!There was another guy here who had 128 GB RAM installed. He didn't report any issues. And since MacPro's have ECC RAM I wouldn't worry about it too much.
One thing I would try is installing 128 GB RAM and then making a RAM disk. I believe you can have a 32GB RAM disk AND 96GB of RAM, but no one has confirmed this.
There was another guy here who had 128 GB RAM installed. He didn't report any issues. And since MacPro's have ECC RAM I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Hey man, whats up?
Nah... you have no worries as OS X's cap stops at 96GB... Windows 8 or 7 will allow full 128GB, but what on earth do u need all that memory for?
I'm running 128GB Ram on my 2009 Mac Pro (flashed to 5,1), it runs at 1600Mhz (8x16gb) perfectly.
However, I'm not running OSX, I'm running Windows Server 2012. I heard in OSX it only shows up as 96GB. But I never ran OSX with the 128GB Ram.
I don't think it would lead to system instability. But that's just a guess. Sorry I don't know for sure. And I won't be able to test for you (it's a Virtual Machine Server and it runs 24/7, so I can't shut it down to run OSX).
Just curious why you wouldn't run it on server grade hardware that has dual power supplies and hot swap hard drives, fans, and power supplies.
The Mac Pro was laying around and I needed a Computer that can handle a lot of RAM. It's been very robust, enough for my needs
Thanks for the reply and explanation. Do you use it at work or home?
Sure thing, hehe, we're running away from the OP's question
To answer your question: I use it at the office. Love it!
Why did you elect to go with Windows Server 2012 over ESXi/vSphere?
Usually cost is the number one reason for that. The licensing for the VMware environment I manage at work is $30k+. Additionally with the way Microsoft changed their licensing model for Server 2012 Datacenter making the operating systems for the Server 2012 virtual machines running on a Server 2012 Datacenter host now covered by the host license. That saves even more money and the more VMs you run the more you save.
We also use Veeam so there is a large cost there also but that cost would be there with HyperV too, if you choose to use it.
Why did you elect to go with Windows Server 2012 over ESXi/vSphere?
The VMs are actually running for development/testing environment. So yes, they are running 24/7 because other people access them too, but if it crashes, no big deal. Definitely not production
Windows Server 2012 with HyperV is more than I need. It was all part of the MSDN subscription I have access to
I guess since I started the thread, I can wander off topic
Are they all Windows VMs?
I have installed Hyper-V and Windows Server 2012 with the Hyper-V role in a test environment, but I am honestly biased because I have used VMware Workstation since 2.0 and ESX since 3.0, and have had nothing but wonderful results. I would like to know more about people's experience with Hyper-V and if they are happy with it, etc.
From what I understand, it is a good platform for Windows VMs, but not quite as good for *nix VMs.
You have peaked my interest - I may install it on this Mac Pro and see how well the VMs run.
I just signed up to add my $.02 on the wandering topic. We use VMWare extensively here and had positive results. I looked into Hyper-V using SCOM (similar to vCenter) but it required too much effort to replicate something we already have and invested with VMWare/vCenter. When I have time, I do need to look back again though. And just like what OP said, VMWare does offer support for various platforms and we run them all (Windows, Linux, Solaris). Now we're looking to virtualize the Mac platform using a Mac Pro.
Anyway, I came across this thread because I wanted to know since Apple only configures its Mac Pro to a max 64GB, I guess the only option is to go 3rd party vendor/supplier?
[...] A theory is that when the hardware is designed an manufactured by Apple, only certain RAM modules were available at the time (i.e. 8GB) but as technology progresses Apple does not update their specifications that their products do indeed support 16GB modules. I am not sure if that is the actual case or not, though.
Most motherboard manufacturers are also conservative about spec-ing max ram. Ram modules draw current, higher density modules draw more current. This is why Apple and other companies may err on the conservative side. It's better to say with confidence that you can pull off 64gb than say 128gb is good but be on a narrower margin of safety.Yes. I personally don't understand why (and would like to) but Apple has in almost all cases quoted a conservative amount of RAM their machines can hold. In a dual socket Mac Pro, the stated amount is 64GB, however 128GB has been tested and works fine with 16GB modules. A single socket Mac Pro will max out lower than that.