Browse thread
thousands of CPU cores
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2008-07-11 (08:52) |
From: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: thousands of CPU cores |
On Friday 11 July 2008 07:26:44 Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > On 10-07-2008, Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de> wrote: > > Using multi-processes instead of multi-threads is the > > usual way on Unix, and it has a lot of advantages. > > Threads-apologetes often say, threads are the ultimative > > technology... but processes have the advantage of encapsulation > > of the wohole environment of the program. > > There is also the fact that using multi process allow you to go further > than the memory limit per process... Yes. > (3GB for Linux/ Is that for 32-bit Linux? > 1GB for Windows)... 32-bit Windows XP has a 2Gb default process memory limit: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx 32-bit Windows Server can be increased to 3Gb. However, any serious power users will already be on 64-bit where these limits have been relegated to quaint stories your grandpa will tell you. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e