Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 11, 2013, 03:31 PM   #1
monkeybagel
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
128gb ram

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
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 03:38 PM   #2
PowerPCMacMan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PowerPC land
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
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
PowerPCMacMan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 03:42 PM   #3
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
It would be for virtualization labs.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 06:01 PM   #4
mac666er
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
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.
__________________
Waiting for a nMacPro
64 GB iPhone 5S; 128GB 4G iPad Air; 16GB 4G retiPad Mini;
15" i7 rMBP; mac mini 2,1;
mac666er is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 06:16 PM   #5
wonderspark
macrumors 68030
 
wonderspark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac666er View Post
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.
Ooh, clever! I'd love to know if this works!
__________________
Wait a second... So you're telling me anything that happens in the sky is legal, and there's a giant crime-blimp flying around this place? I don't know how I missed that.
wonderspark is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 06:31 PM   #6
wallysb01
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac666er View Post
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.
That might have been me. My previous work machine had 128GB thinking either Apple would up the limit or we'd just boot to Linux on occation. Anyway, it runs just fine with 128 plugged in, but only using 96.
wallysb01 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2013, 09:57 PM   #7
FluJunkie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPCMacMan View Post
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've used way more RAM than that (like taking up the lion's share of a cluster node with a full 1 TB of RAM) at work.

When working with large data sets or matrices, many languages like R and Python hold them in memory. So for really huge data sets, and analysis done on the full data set, you need massive amounts of RAM.

There are ways around it - being clever with parallelization and working with your data in chunks, but sometimes its just easier to hurl computational resources at something. Because at the rates I bill for work, if popping 128 GB of RAM into a workstation lets me avoid more than about 2 days of clever coding over the lifetime of the machine, its paid for itself.
FluJunkie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 12:35 AM   #8
xDeLiRiOuSx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
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).
xDeLiRiOuSx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 12:53 PM   #9
brand
macrumors 68040
 
brand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by xDeLiRiOuSx View Post
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.
brand is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 11:34 PM   #10
xDeLiRiOuSx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by brand View Post
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
xDeLiRiOuSx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2013, 11:40 PM   #11
brand
macrumors 68040
 
brand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by xDeLiRiOuSx View Post
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?
brand is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 12:10 PM   #12
xDeLiRiOuSx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by brand View Post
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!
xDeLiRiOuSx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 12:38 PM   #13
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by xDeLiRiOuSx View Post
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?
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 03:00 PM   #14
brand
macrumors 68040
 
brand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 127.0.0.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
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.
brand is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2013, 08:17 PM   #15
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by brand View Post
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.
You must have the Enterprise Plus licenses.

I don't know anyone that uses HyperV in production was the reason I was asking. It is probably stable for Windows VMs, but VMware ESX/ESXi has been really at the "appliance-level" reliability at some time. In low security environments, the uptime on ESXi is very impressive and with the small attack footprint patches are not as critical as other platforms. In high-security environments with vMotion, I have been very impressed with what VMware brings to the table. I think the Mac Pro is even a supported platform for ESXi 5.1.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2013, 01:11 AM   #16
xDeLiRiOuSx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
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
xDeLiRiOuSx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2013, 02:24 PM   #17
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by xDeLiRiOuSx View Post
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.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2013, 08:49 PM   #18
xDeLiRiOuSx
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
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.

Hehehe! Of course

Yeah, I only use Windows VMs. Everything from Windows XP to Windows Server 2012. It works like a dream, smooth, easy to configure, snapshots work as expect. Of course, I don't have anything to compare it with other than VMware Server 2.0 that I used to use back in the days.

Windows Server 2012 runs as well on the Mac Pro as any other PC desktop. The only nicer thing is that it has enough slots of 128GB of Ram. Which is really really sweet when you need it!

Like it said, I used my Mac Pro because it was laying around; it was not the designed purchase.

let me know how it goes!
xDeLiRiOuSx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 10:52 AM   #19
qgoof
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
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?
qgoof is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 11:08 AM   #20
calaverasgrande
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: ?
I participated in a focus group type thing a while back. The company is working on a bare metal hypervisor for Macs. It was pretty impressive. Especially since it was very minimal code. I think they said 16k of code?
VMs ran very fast. Though I did miss more advanced virtual networking features you see in other hypervisors.
calaverasgrande is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 04:35 PM   #21
monkeybagel
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
monkeybagel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by qgoof View Post
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?
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.

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.
monkeybagel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2013, 08:59 PM   #22
CptSky
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Sherbrooke (Qc, CA)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
[...] 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.
I think manuals only specify what was/is offered by Apple. If they update the offer through firmware update, Apple Store update, etc, they'll update their manuals (online, or with new models). Apple say that Mac Pro can handle 64 GB because it's the best upgrade you can buy through them (as they don't sell 16 GB stick), although the OS support up to 96 GB. If you buy external RAM, which isn't necessarily certified by Apple, but tested to work and following the Apple specs (any RAM should work anyway), you'll go outside what Apple IS certifying to work. They mostly certify only what they sell.

e.g. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1219 The Xserve RAID wasn't offered with 750 GB hard drives when released, but, as it was added through firmware update, the specs have been updated (with a note indicating the firmware 1.5.1 requirement).

Apple never supported officially 16 GB sticks, so, they'll continue to say that the maximum is 64 GB.
__________________
MacBook Pro, 2x 2.26 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 240 GB SSD ;
PowerMac G5, 4x 2.50 GHZ, 8 GB RAM, 4 TB (RAID-0) ;
32 GB iPhone 5S ; Apple TV (3nd Gen) ;
Xserve RAID 9 TB ;
CptSky is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2013, 11:49 AM   #23
calaverasgrande
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeybagel View Post
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.
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.
And then there is the Mac Pros infamous finickyness when it comes to ram. I cant think of any other server or workstation that is so picky about ram!
I quite often must buy whole sets of ram at a time because even different batches of the same model ram won't play nice.
Not sure why Macs are so NOT plug and play in the ram dept.
(pretty frustrating too, I have a whole tray of 1 and 2gb modules that aren't being used)
calaverasgrande is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2013, 03:48 PM   #24
Prince134
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I got 48gb on board sorry not 128gb
But, making extra DRAM into a ram disk for scratch disk, has let my multi camera (i got 5 angle of cameras sequence) editing in Premiere Pro CS6 like flying. Before I made the ram disk, I used SSD, but it will shatter.

So extra ram does help!!
Prince134 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC