On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:46 AM, <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:33:48AM +0200, Dan wrote: > >> Yes the calculation is memory/cpu instensive. I can not consider a >> faster (multi-core) processor because I do not have the budget to buy >> a new machine. But I need more RAM, the calculation do not fit in 64 >> GB of RAM. > > In that case, if the computer has to resort to disk (swap), most probably > more RAM might help. How is the access pattern? Does the calculation > need access to "all of its address space" "all of the time"?
Right now the calculation fits in 64 GB, but I want to increase the size. I could use the swap (SDD), but it gets very hot, maybe I could buy a fan for the SSD. I do not know if that exists. The calculation needs "previous results". It does not need all the addess space at the exact same time. I could use the swap, but I suppose that there is a limit for the temperature that the SSD can get. > In that case, there seems you have no choice. OTOH this will be the > pessimal access pattern wrt memory caches (which will be stretched > half as thinly with the more RAM), but probably you know all of that. No I do not know that. I am a scientist, and I use the computers as a tool to do simulations that I write in C++ with (Threading Building Blocks). I have a limited knowledge of the computer architecture. That would mean that a calculation that fits in 64GB will run slower with 256GB? or that means that when I increase the size the calculation will be slower. Thanks! Dan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAK00fOKy_2f57oNtOG=eshb2djr-wmwwwmdh4c5hg7trynw...@mail.gmail.com
