See below. I hope MS Outlook does some decent indend so my response is clear -.-
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: 30. november 2011 18:51
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: Maximum memory that can be assigned to Tomcat on windows
Op donderdag, 1 december 2011 09:39 schreef Casper Wandahl Schmidt
kalle.pri...@gmail.com:
See below. I hope MS Outlook does some decent indend so my response is clear -.-
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
Sent: 30. november
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Klop (Mailing List) [mailto:ronald-mailingl...@base.nl]
Sent: 1. december 2011 12:06
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: [OT]RE: Maximum memory that can be assigned to Tomcat on
windows platform
Op donderdag, 1 december 2011 09:39 schreef Casper
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:29, Casper Wandahl Schmidt
kalle.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
That didn't quite help me understand, because how can the OS map from ie.
0-4GB to 4-8GB (the window is moved) when it can only use a 32bit register
to tell the machine where to look in the psysical
-Original Message-
From: Francis GALIEGUE [mailto:f...@one2team.com]
Sent: 1. december 2011 12:33
To: Tomcat Users List
Subject: Re: [OT]RE: Maximum memory that can be assigned to Tomcat on windows
platform
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:29, Casper Wandahl Schmidt kalle.pri...@gmail.com
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:29:14 +0100, Casper Wandahl Schmidt wrote:
That didn't quite help me understand, because how can the OS map from
ie.
0-4GB to 4-8GB (the window is moved) when it can only use a 32bit
register
to tell the machine where to look in the psysical memory, that is
where my
Mikolaj Rydzewski wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:29:14 +0100, Casper Wandahl Schmidt wrote:
That didn't quite help me understand, because how can the OS map from ie.
0-4GB to 4-8GB (the window is moved) when it can only use a 32bit
register
to tell the machine where to look in the psysical
From: André Warnier [mailto:a...@ice-sa.com]
Subject: Re: [OT]RE: Maximum memory that can be assigned to Tomcat on windows
platform
In general: the bigger heap, the longer GC will run.
Not strictly true, and hasn't been true for many years. GC time is
proportional to the number of live
The OS has little to do with the calculation. The CPU hardware is
doing it. The processor's address logic uses registers which are
wider than 32 bits. Just as you can add a 1-digit number to a 3-digit
number and get a 3-digit result, the widget that maps a process'
virtual address space to the
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:38:01PM +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski wrote:
On the other hand, increasing java heap size is not always the best
option. It heavily depends on memory usage pattern in your application.
In general: the bigger heap, the longer GC will run.
I was thinking that someone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Casper,
On 12/1/11 3:39 AM, Casper Wandahl Schmidt wrote:
Aha so I learned something new today :) I'm still puzzled as to
how a 32 bit CPU can compute and fetch a memory cell with address
above 4GB since it cannot hold this large value.
OS != CPU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mikolaj,
On 12/1/11 6:38 AM, Mikolaj Rydzewski wrote:
On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:29:14 +0100, Casper Wandahl Schmidt wrote:
That didn't quite help me understand, because how can the OS map
from ie. 0-4GB to 4-8GB (the window is moved) when it can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
On 12/1/11 9:50 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 12:38:01PM +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski wrote:
On the other hand, increasing java heap size is not always the
best option. It heavily depends on memory usage pattern in your
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 18:51, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
[...]
Running a machine with more than 4GiB in 32-bit mode isn't stupid at
all IMO. If you have relatively small processes, there's no need for
the overhead of 64-bit even if you have 16GiB or more.
This
Francis GALIEGUE wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 18:51, Christopher Schultz
ch...@christopherschultz.net wrote:
[...]
Running a machine with more than 4GiB in 32-bit mode isn't stupid at
all IMO. If you have relatively small processes, there's no need for
the overhead of 64-bit even if you have
Does the fact of having a system with a 64-bit CPU (and OS) necessarily
(or usually) imply
that data transfers between CPU and RAM happen also 64-bit in parallel ?
That depends on front bus width. Modern PCs has 64-bit bus AFAIK.
In 64-bit CPU 64 is register size and nothing else (although 86x64
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 22:38, André Warnier a...@ice-sa.com wrote:
[...]
I am not knowledgeable at all in such questions, and while you are at it let
me ask a question :
Does the fact of having a system with a 64-bit CPU (and OS) necessarily (or
usually) imply that data transfers between CPU
17 matches
Mail list logo
