If your Mac Pro has more than 80 gigs of ram DO NOT UPDATE TO 10.8.2

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by HyperX13, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. HyperX13, Sep 26, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2012

    HyperX13 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #1
    Your Mac pro will not boot if you have more than 80 Gigs of Ram. I had to go back down to 64 gigs of ram on my 2012 Dual Processor 3.06 Mac Pro.

    You will be stuck at PCI configuration.

    10.8.2 doesn't work, but 10.8.1 does.

    Seems to affect all the mac pros that can take more than 64 gigs of Ram.
     
  2. voyagerd macrumors 65816

    voyagerd

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, CA
    #2
    I'm just curious if this will work since you said it stops at PCI configuration. Can you try adding "npci=0x2000" to Kernel Flags in your com.apple.boot.plist and see if it will boot with all the RAM after this is added?

    <key>Kernel Flags</key>
    <string>npci=0x2000</string>
     
  3. Darth.Titan macrumors 68030

    Darth.Titan

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    Considering Apple only supports up to 64 GB in those systems, I'm not sure how likely it is you'll ever see that "fixed".

     
  4. HyperX13 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #4
    I could not get into my system at all so I just removed memory. I guess I can fiddle with it now. Issue is that this already caused me a few hours of headaches and I am a bit behind on some of the crunching that I was doing.

    ----------

    I agree. Apple does! OWC told me different story and it worked all the way until 10.8.2
     
  5. Paulywauly macrumors 6502a

    Paulywauly

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, UK
    #5
    96GB of RAM?! Thought id been in a car crash and woke up in 2030 for a minute there........ :D ;) wow
     
  6. voyagerd macrumors 65816

    voyagerd

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2002
    Location:
    Rancho Cordova, CA
    #6
  7. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #7
    Yeah $6.00-$8.50 per GB for ECC and $4 for non-ECC is dirt cheap. Considering FB-DIMMs were $200 per GB 6 years ago memory for Mac Pros has come down a lot.
     
  8. logicpro7 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Location:
    London UK
    #8
    Please tell me what you would use 96gb of ram for? Serious question :)
     
  9. Phrygian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #9
    yea... i'm wondering that myself... you running echelon in your basement?
     
  10. iParis, Sep 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2012

    iParis macrumors 68040

    iParis

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    New Mexico
    #10
    In addition to me as well wondering what in the world you use 96GB of ram, or even 64GB, for, you're also contradicting yourself. In both the thread title and body you said if it has more than 96GB ram. That made me wonder why you said you had to go back down to 64GB; why not 96GB? Then at the last sentence you changed it to more than 64GB. :confused:
     
  11. lixuelai, Sep 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2012

    lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #11
    You are over thinking it. Most people got what he meant and he likely just made a mistake phrasing it.
     
  12. ssgbryan macrumors 6502

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #12
    In my case, rendering.

    I have 22Gb of ram on my current system & it is choking on a 3d model of a motel. The model by itself takes up 15Gb of physical ram & another 15Gb of virtual memory. This is before I add characters.
     
  13. tomvos macrumors 6502

    tomvos

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Location:
    In the Nexus.
    #13
    In-Memory-Databases — if speed matters, this is the way to go. :cool:
     
  14. HyperX13 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #14
    well actually I was running 128 gigs of ram. I created a ram disk for 64 gigs and used it as a photoshop scratch disk. It makes things REALLY fast. When not using it as a scratch disk, I move my apps in there (temporarily) for lightning fast access. Rendering to that ram disk is another advantage.

    ----------

    I bought a Mac Pro with 2 cpus. Each one is 3.06. I then bought 128 gigs of ram from OWC. I loaded it up and swaped my drives from my dual processors 2.26 Mac Pro. Loaded it up and it was awesome. 128 gigs of ram showed up. I then downloaded 10.8.2 update and installed it and the Mac Pro would not boot. I discovered that people can't run 96 gigs of ram or more. I just pulled 64 gigs and its running 64 gigs of ram while my other 64 gigs of ram is sitting here

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    I am not BSing anyone here. Just giving you all heads up that if you put in 96 gigs or more you will not be able to boot up. I think someone is running 80 gigs with no issues.
     
  15. TomTomTuning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Location:
    Central PA
    #15
  16. HyperX13 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #16
  17. spoonie1972 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #17
    good to know.

    another use of ram is for sound libraries - if you've ever done any work using kontakt and big libraries - you know what i'm talking about. the more ram... the better.
     
  18. TomTomTuning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Location:
    Central PA
    #18
  19. HyperX13 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #19
    yup.. its all gone on reboot...
     
  20. TomTomTuning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Location:
    Central PA
    #20
    Cool, I hope you figure out a way to run 128GB again! Good luck!
     
  21. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #21
    Yes, RAM is volatile. When you reboot, or if your computer crashes, you will lose everything.

    Using the disk util from the terminal is easy, but make sure you type the command correctly and pay attention to the quotes (don't forget the quote at the end).

    Code:
    diskutil erasevolume HFS+ “ramdisk” `hdiutil attach -nomount ram://1165430`
    
    The way to figure out the RAM value is to take the size that you want in MB and multiply it by 2048. So a 1000 MB RAM drive would be 2048000
     
  22. Spacedust macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Location:
    Poland
    #22
    In this case your're running only in Dual Channel instead of Triple Channel.

    I've ordered six 8 GB sticks - so I'll be having 48 GB RAM DDR3 1333 MHz in Triple Channel and this seems to be the best solution ;)
     
  23. Phrygian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    #23
    Ram disk makes sense for fast rendering speeds and graphic design work. I've personally have no reason to do... but before i got an SSD i considered making a small one.

    Very interesting information OP.
     
  24. mac666er macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #24
    One response in the Apple forums seems to point to the ATI driver not being able to handle more than 80GBs of RAM. That is why the screen didn't show a picture but the Mac was still available via SSH according to some people on the discussion thread where it was reported. I don't know if it was your case HyperX.

    As said here:

    https://discussions.apple.com/message/19781514?tstart=0#19781514?tstart=0

    Per your pictures, you have an AMD card.
    Conjecture: If that is true, maybe switching to an NVidia card will solve this right away?
     
  25. jared_kipe, Sep 27, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2012

    jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #25
    And I feel like a boss running 32gb ram on my main desktop. :cool:

    ----------

    In all seriousness, not necessarily. Certain db engines (caugh MySQL) only allow hash type indexes on memory tabl storage (last time I checked). Making them unsuitable for a lot of tasks, often an SSD would be better.

    Edit: I just checked, MySQL can now create memory tables with either hash indexes or normal (b-tree) indexes. Still there are times where in memory tables are not the best idea...
     

Share This Page