Mike Meyer wrote:
> There is something very non-unixy going on here, though. Why is
> vm_malloc exiting with an error message, instead of returning a
> failure to the calling application? I've seen other applications
> include a FOSS malloc implementation to work around bugs in the
> system's mall
Bengt Richter wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:03:34 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Machin wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:29:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 14:03:34 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Machin wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:29:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
It doesn't seems to help. I'm
"Maurice LING" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
> I think I've hit a system limit in python when I try to construct a list
> of 200,000 elements. My error is
>
> malloc: vm_allocate (size = 2400256) failed..
>
> Just wondering is this specific to my system o
Philippe C. Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Why don't you catch the exception and print the trace ?
I don't think a Python exception is ever raised. The error message
quoted below comes from the system, not Python.
> Regards,
>
> Philippe
>
> Maurice LING wrote:
>>This is the exact error message:
>>
Hi,
Why don't you catch the exception and print the trace ?
Regards,
Philippe
Maurice LING wrote:
> John Machin wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:29:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>
John Machin wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:29:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>It doesn't seems to help. I'm thinking that it might be a SOAPpy
>>>problem. The allocation fails when I grab a
On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:29:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Richter) wrote:
>On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>It doesn't seems to help. I'm thinking that it might be a SOAPpy
>>problem. The allocation fails when I grab a list of more than 150k
>>ele
On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:08:31 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James Stroud wrote:
>
>> Sorry Maurice, apparently in bash its "ulimit" (no n). I don't use bash, so
>> I
>> don't know all of the differences offhand. Try that.
>>
>> James
>
>Thanks guys,
>
>It doesn't seems to help.
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>
>> > So why would Apple insist on setting unusably low process limits, when
>> > the others don't?
>>
>> You're making an unwarranted assumption here - that the OP wasn't
>> creating a large process of some kind.
>
> You need a spec
James Stroud wrote:
> Sorry Maurice, apparently in bash its "ulimit" (no n). I don't use bash, so I
> don't know all of the differences offhand. Try that.
>
> James
Thanks guys,
It doesn't seems to help. I'm thinking that it might be a SOAPpy
problem. The allocation fails when I grab a list o
James Stroud wrote:
>Sorry Maurice, apparently in bash its "ulimit" (no n). I don't use bash, so I
>don't know all of the differences offhand. Try that.
>
>
The only shells I know of that uses unlimit is csh & tcsh.. bleh.. :)
FWIW, I've had the same problem in openbsd, while ulimit will fix
Sorry Maurice, apparently in bash its "ulimit" (no n). I don't use bash, so I
don't know all of the differences offhand. Try that.
James
On Friday 06 May 2005 03:02 pm, Maurice LING wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> thanks for your help.
>
> Yes, I'm using Mac OSX 1.3 with 256MB Ram. Each element in the
Mike Meyer wrote:
> > So why would Apple insist on setting unusably low process limits, when
> > the others don't?
>
> You're making an unwarranted assumption here - that the OP wasn't
> creating a large process of some kind.
You need a special license to create large processes on a Mac?
I click
Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> thanks for your help.
>
> Yes, I'm using Mac OSX 1.3 with 256MB Ram. Each element in the list is
> a float. The list is actually a retrieved results of document IDs from
> SOAP interface. And Mac OSX does not have 'unlimit' command as sho
Hi everyone,
thanks for your help.
Yes, I'm using Mac OSX 1.3 with 256MB Ram. Each element in the list is a
float. The list is actually a retrieved results of document IDs from
SOAP interface. And Mac OSX does not have 'unlimit' command as shown,
Maurice-Lings-Computer:~ mauriceling$ unlimit
-
On Fri, 06 May 2005 18:24:21 +1000, Maurice LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I think I've hit a system limit in python when I try to construct a list
>of 200,000 elements. My error is
>
>malloc: vm_allocate (size = 2400256) failed..
>
>Just wondering is this specific to my system or wh
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Stroud wrote:
>
>> > does Mac OS X ship with memory limits set by default? isn't that
>> > a single-user system?
>>
>> Dear original poster or whoever is interested in OS X:
>>
>> OS X is not a single user system. It is BSD based unix. And its [
On Friday 06 May 2005 11:27 am, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> James Stroud wrote:
> > > does Mac OS X ship with memory limits set by default? isn't that
> > > a single-user system?
> >
> > Dear original poster or whoever is interested in OS X:
> >
> > OS X is not a single user system. It is BSD based uni
James Stroud wrote:
> > does Mac OS X ship with memory limits set by default? isn't that
> > a single-user system?
>
> Dear original poster or whoever is interested in OS X:
>
> OS X is not a single user system. It is BSD based unix. And its [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> sweet! (Though I'm u
On Friday 06 May 2005 10:29 am, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> > Without platform information, it's hard to say. On a modern Unix
> > system, you only run into system resource limits when the system is
> > heavily loaded. Otherwise, you're going to hit per-process limits. In
> > the lat
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Without platform information, it's hard to say. On a modern Unix
> system, you only run into system resource limits when the system is
> heavily loaded. Otherwise, you're going to hit per-process limits. In
> the latter case, adding RAM or swap won't help at all. Raising the
>
On 5/6/05, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maurice LING wrote:
> >> Will adding more RAM helps in this case?
> >
> > probably. more swap space might also help. or you could use a
> > smarter malloc package. posting more details on your p
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maurice LING wrote:
>> Will adding more RAM helps in this case?
>
> probably. more swap space might also help. or you could use a
> smarter malloc package. posting more details on your platform,
> toolchain, python version, and list building approac
Maurice LING wrote:
> I think I've hit a system limit in python when I try to construct a list
> of 200,000 elements.
there's no such limit in Python.
> My error is
>
> malloc: vm_allocate (size = 2400256) failed..
>
> Just wondering is this specific to my system or what?
that doesn't look
Hi,
I think I've hit a system limit in python when I try to construct a list
of 200,000 elements. My error is
malloc: vm_allocate (size = 2400256) failed..
Just wondering is this specific to my system or what? Will adding more
RAM helps in this case?
Thanks and cheers
Maurice
--
http://m
26 matches
Mail list logo
