At Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:51:00 -0400, Tony Garnock-Jones wrote: > Hi Matthew, everybody, > > On 2011-06-09 7:35 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > > Racket normally relies on memory limits imposed by the OS. > > After I posted my message, I thought to try ulimit. Unfortunately, it > didn't help: I couldn't find any setting smaller than all of available > RAM within which Racket would even get as far as it was getting with no > limit before crashing with an out-of-memory error.
Ok. I think it will be easier to work on base memory use using 3m. > > With 3m enabled, then custodian-based limits can also constrain > > memory use. > > These look possibly-interesting, but they mightn't help much in this > particular case: they seem more aimed at punishing excessive consumption > of a shared resource rather than doing more with less? A GC should be tried before actually terminating the main custodian. If that's not what happens currently, we could make it work that way. > > Finally, the GC can be tuned in various ways to reduce Racket's > > footprint. > > Ah! Boehm or 3m? Both, but the knobs vary, and they're all internal right now. The main Boehm knob is the `GC_free_space_divisor' variable. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
