[Pharo-project] Memory usage

jannik.laval jannik.laval at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 08:11:26 CEST 2012


On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:17 PM, jannik.laval wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I tried the VM included in Moose (moosetechnology.org).
>> If I remember well, it is a cog vm.
>> 
>> The maximal heap size is (precisely): 2138046463 bytes.
>> Why this number ? I don't know. But I will need more than 2Gb.
> 
> HI jannik 
> 
> was the system usable?
> Because the problem with more memory is that you need specific GCes.

It seems.
I built a DSM on a 1300 packages system.

Jannik

> 
> Stef
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I will try the 64bits vm, and see.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Jannik
>> 
>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:51 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> There is no regression in the interpreter VM ... well actually there was
>>> about 6 months back, but I keep an eye on it and it's fixed again now :)
>>> 
>>> The 32-bit interpreter VM will not fail on any 2GB or 4BG boundaries,
>>> and an interpreter VM compiled for the 64-bit object format can handle
>>> images greater than 7GB (probably much more, but my 8GB PC is too small
>>> to do anything larger).
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if all of the necessary fixes are in place for the StackVM
>>> and Cog. If not, I'm sure it will be addressed over time (it's just not
>>> something that I have ever checked).
>>> 
>>> I believe that Jannik is interested in running very large images, at
>>> least on an experimental basis. For anything over a few GB, this requires
>>> an interpreter VM and a 64-bit image. As you know, this is sure to run
>>> into problems for the garbage collector as the number of objects
>>> increases, but it would certainly be interesting to see how far the
>>> current garbage collector can go in real world conditions before it
>>> turns to mollasses.
>>> 
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:57:02AM -0400, John McIntosh wrote:
>>>> A few years back the interpreted virtual machine was fixed to allow an
>>>> image to grow to the 4 GB limit.
>>>> It is unclear to me if someone regressed the software to impose a 2GB limit
>>>> again, or if the 2GB number
>>>> mentioned is based on how things worked10 years ago?
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:01 AM, St?phane Ducasse
>>>> <stephane.ducasse at inria.fr>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:46 PM, johnmci wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> David Lewis and I spent a far amount of time a few years back  to make
>>>>> the 32
>>>>>> vm 4gb clean. So are you running on stale knowledge here, or does the vm
>>>>>> crash when to goes over 2gb?
>>>>> 
>>>>> sorry my english limit does not let me know understanding what you mean
>>>>> exactly.
>>>>> Jannik in the context of moose would like to see if we can have image
>>>>> larger than 500 mb (on mac it should be possible).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stef
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Jannik Laval
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

---
Jannik Laval




More information about the Pharo-project mailing list