On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:28:38PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote:

>  Thank you so much for your detailed instructions and help! And
>  indeed you are completely right, it's not a x86, I don't know what
>  led me to believe it was.

Oh, now you got me all curious. What architecture is it then? Sparc,
maybe? I had assumed it was an amd64/x86-64 and that the GNU/Linux
installed on it was a 32 bit one. Make me drool a bit, show me
/proc/cpuinfo .

Ah yes, it makes sense now. Contrary to amd64, as far as I know most
GNU/Linux sparc64 installations have a 32 bit userland, but 64 bit
kernel, libraries and compilers ready for programs that benefit from
it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jones [mailto:rich@annexia.org]
> Sent: Tue 8/14/2007 18:25
> To: Lionel Elie Mamane; Koprowski, A.; caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
> 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.
> 
> Rich.
>