English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2007-08-14 (16:26)
From: Richard Jones <rich@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml?
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:17:41PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:36:27PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Lionel Elie Mamane [mailto:lionel@mamane.lu]
> >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:16:14PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote:
> >>>  I have a 32-bit linux machine with 48-bit addressing of its 128GB
> >>>  of RAM. I'd very much like to use this amount of memory; however
> >>>  I get Out_of_memory exception after ocaml consumes 4GB. Is there
> >>>  anything can do to get my hands on more than 
> >> Run a 64 bit GNU/Linux on that machine, (...)
> >   Thanks for the suggestion but I'm afraid I cannot do that. This is
> > a faculty server to which I only have a user access.
> Type:
>  uname -m
> in a shell. If the answer is x86_64, there are things you can do. If
> it says i386, i486 or i686, all you can do is complain to the system
> administrator (if you are in informatica, I presume that would be bcf
> in room HG 8.73 - 8th floor of Hoofdgebouw; is the machine by any
> chance elephant?).
> In case of x86_64: How much manual hacking are you willing to do?

Is this machine really x86-based?  32-bit x86 machines have at most
36-bit addresses (through PAE), although that is only usable through
page tables, not to ordinary user processes.  64-bit x86-64 machines
have 48-bit addressing in current incarnations so if they are running
a 32-bit kernel or a 32-bit Xen domain they may fit the description,
but the original poster is still s.o.l.  My bet though is it's not x86
at all.


Richard Jones
Red Hat