On 9 July 2013 12:14, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: > > Am 09.07.2013 um 11:01 schrieb Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com>: > >> On 9 July 2013 10:21, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 9 July 2013 10:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 09 Jul 2013, at 10:03, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9 July 2013 09:13, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> wrote: >>>>>>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run >>>>>>>> other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go >>>>>>>> there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to >>>>>>>> your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does >>>>>>>> not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will >>>>>>>> choose to do it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the >>>>>>>> end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply >>>>>>>> saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do >>>>>>>> not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>>>>>> stop wasting time on it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>>>>>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And change this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>>>>>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>>>>>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >>>>>> >>>>>> Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in >>>>>> the consortium >>>>>> so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab7745b2a6d44 >>>> >>>> Yeah ! Now users can set the limit themselves. >>>> >>>> And then they will come back complaining that certain things don't work >>>> when they raise the limit too high ;-) >>>> >>>> One day we will have a proper 64-bit VM. >>>> >>> Yes, i wish we can be there today. >>> (And one day people will learn a difference between actual memory used >>> and reserved address space :) >>> >> .. because reserving 512Mb for image which barely eats 30Mb is a huge waste. > > Yes, use cases are different. Therefor there should be a vm switch where you > can choose the maximum memory to reserve, to heap size at start, the maximum > heap size, etc. > and so i added it. But i hate doing that. Because such switch should not exist and VM should be able to adapt to application's memory requirements automatically, without requiring user's input. Because then you have to write manual, explaining what is address space, and why users should be educated about it in order to use VM properly. And every other switch like this one you add, it makes manual bigger and bigger, up to the point, that it turns into complete mess of inter-depending, conflicting switches, some of them obsolete, some of them tricky and nobody knows how to use them properly (and that happens for sure).
> Norbert -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
