Although it makes sense that a 32-bit pointer can address only 4 GB (virtual or physical, regardless). I agree it's odd that you get only 2 of the 4 GB address space for your app under Win64 and the other 2 is reserved for the system. Of course the clear way forward is to make a 64-bit app, I don't know where that is on the Racket roadmap.
Hey wait a second. Aren't Racket pointers a couple bits less than 32? Like, say, 30 bits? And that's 1 GB address space? Q.E.D. ... ? On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > I run DrRacket on Window 7 premium home and can go up to 2 Gb. (I have a > dual core 32 bit processor, 4 Gb memory of which 3 Gb for applications) > What amazes me is, that when setting memory unlimited, DrRacket can't go > over 2 Gb. In stead, when passing this limit, DrRacket is aborted by windows > 7. (even when virtual memory limit of windows is set to 10 Gb) > Jos > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: users-boun...@racket-lang.org >> [mailto:users-boun...@racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Greg Hendershott >> Sent: 13 July 2010 18:40 >> To: Matthew Flatt >> Cc: plt-scheme >> Subject: Re: [racket] DrRacket never uses more than 1 GB? >> >> Thanks Matthew. This was Racket 5.0. I swore "unlimited" was >> set in DrRacket GUI. Maybe some bug where that was ignored? >> I'll check again but meanwhile I reverted temporarily to PLT >> Scheme 4.2.5. Another git bisect turned up a point where the >> behavior changed (before that I wasn't running out of memory) >> and I'm trying to figure out why. After I figure that out >> I'll pop the stack and go back to Racket 5.0 to confirm >> what's happening with that. >> >> > I don't think that's it. If you have a memory limit set, >> then there's >> > a factor of 2 involved, but that doesn't apply when you >> don't have a >> > memory limit. >> >> That's not what I'm seeing so far. >> >> Again this is all on Windows 7 64-bit, in case that matters. >> Since Racket (and PLT Scheme) are 32-bit processes, 2 GB is >> the max they >> *could* get. >> >> But they never get 2 GB. Just 1 GB. On both PLT 4.2.5 and >> Racket 5.0, when I set "unlimited" in the GUI I have never, >> ever seen the DrXxx.exe process exceed 1 GB. It always tops >> out there and GC kicks in. If GC can't free up much, it just >> gets stuck "flatlined" there at >> 1 GB, and eventually the Visual C++ runtime error occurs. >> >> So: >> [1] At some point my code started using much more memory. >> That's my issue to figure out. Shouldn't need > 1 GB for this project. >> [2] Even so, 1 GB seems to be a limit even if "unlimited" is set. >> >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Matthew Flatt >> <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> > At Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:55:17 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote: >> >> Ah. If the GC needs 2X actual that would explain 2 GB --> >> 1 GB usable. >> >> That's a shame but I understand. >> > >> > I don't think that's it. If you have a memory limit set, >> then there's >> > a factor of 2 involved, but that doesn't apply when you >> don't have a >> > memory limit. >> > >> >> Since I posted, my git bisect suggests it wasn't my code that >> >> changed, instead there was some change from PLT 4 to Racket. >> > >> > For "Racket", do you mean version 5.0? If you mean later >> versions from >> > git, I wonder whether commit 41d1daf53 from June 1 is relevant. >> > (Commit 0e664e7c0 is needed along with 41d1daf53 under Windows.) >> > >> > >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
