On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, 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
Hi Glen,
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:24 PM, 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
> happ
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
>
>
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 / C
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
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
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 late
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
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 Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
>
>
> 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 wrote:
>>
>>> I'm using the latest version of Sage (3.4.2) which is python 2.5 an
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 wrote:
>
>> 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
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Glenn Tarbox, PhD wrote:
> 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:
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',
m
13 matches
Mail list logo
