Hi,
Sat, 16 May 2009 22:24:34 -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
Today at Sage Days we tried slices on a few large arrays (no mmap) and
found that slicing breaks on arrays somewhere between 2.0e9 and 2.5e9
elements. The failure mode is the same, no error thrown, basically
nothing happens
This
Hi Glen,
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
Today at Sage Days we tried slices on a few large arrays (no mmap) and
found that slicing breaks on arrays somewhere between 2.0e9 and 2.5e9
elements. The failure mode is the same, no error thrown, basically
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Glen,
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
Today at Sage Days we tried slices on a few large arrays (no mmap) and
found that slicing breaks on arrays somewhere
Today at Sage Days we tried slices on a few large arrays (no mmap) and found
that slicing breaks on arrays somewhere between 2.0e9 and 2.5e9 elements.
The failure mode is the same, no error thrown, basically nothing happens
This was on one of the big sage machines. I don't know the specific OS /
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
I'm using the latest version of Sage (3.4.2) which is python 2.5 and numpy
something or other (I will do more digging presently)
I'm able to map large files and access all the elements unless I'm using
slices
so,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
I'm using the latest version of Sage (3.4.2) which is python 2.5 and numpy
something or other (I will do more digging presently)
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD gl...@tarbox.orgwrote:
I'm using the latest version of Sage (3.4.2) which
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:31:45AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
I've been working on some other things lately and that number seemed
related to 2^32... now that I look more closely, I don't know where that
number comes from.
Is your OS 64bit?
Ga�l
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:31:45AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
I've been working on some other things lately and that number seemed
related to 2^32... now that I look more closely, I don't
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:13:23AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Gael Varoquaux
[1]gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:31:45AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
� � �I've been working on some other things lately and
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Gael Varoquaux
gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:13:23AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Gael Varoquaux
[1]gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 01:31:45AM
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 07:40:58AM -0700, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
Hum, I am wondering: could it be that Sage has not been compiled in
64bits? That number '32' seems to me to point toward a 32bit pointer
issue (I may be wrong).
The other tests I posted indicate everything
I'm using the latest version of Sage (3.4.2) which is python 2.5 and numpy
something or other (I will do more digging presently)
I'm able to map large files and access all the elements unless I'm using
slices
so, for example:
fp = np.memmap(/mnt/hdd/data/mmap/numpy1e10.mmap, dtype='float64',
13 matches
Mail list logo
