Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen wrote: > Prof Brian Ripley wrote: > >>Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb RAM, as people (I >>think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small. > > It's a while since I actually har R used on such small machines, I think > 64 MB is quite acceptable now.
May I add another note to this - I recently upgraded to 64-bits (AMD opteron) and noticed the memory foot print of R has shot up. Just starting R takes up 90+MB virtual. There are correponding increases with Python and Perl as well; I suspect R suffers a bit on 64-bit platform due to extensive use of pointers internally. The fundamental unit in R, SEXP, is 6 pointers + 1 int, (and another pointer for itself). So I would probably say 64MB is questionable on 64-bit, but then probably nobody is stupid enough to do that... For those who want to investigate the equivalent in Perl, the equivalent perl headers corresponding to "R/include/Rinternals.h" is located at the "-I" flags of the output of: perl -MExtUtils::Embed -e ccopts (no idea where python stores its stuff...) Hin-Tak Leung > > Kjetil > > >>Since then R has grown, and we has recently started to optimize R for >>speed rather than size. I recently tested R-devel on my ancient Win98 >>notebook with 64Mb RAM -- it ran but startup was rather slow on what I >>think is a 233MHz processor and very slow disc. >> >>R still runs in 16Mb, but that is getting tight. Does anyone have any >>need to run on a smaller machine than my 64Mb notebook? >> > > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
