Magnus ?or Torfason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Carl Ludewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Good call, Jon. I added -Xmx64m to torque.sh's java command and all
> > > went smoothly. How do we prevent others from running into the same
> > > problem? Should we add the boost to torque.sh & torque.bat, although
> > > it might be VM-dependent, or should it be in a FAQ somewhere?
> >
> > I doubt it's VM dependent. The amount of memory required most likely
> > corresponds to the size of your schema. Adding it to the docs seems
> > like a must. Adding it to the shell script might be a good idea as
> > well. Since you have first hand experience with it Carl, would you be
> > willing to handle make the appropriate changes?
> > --
> >
> > Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>
> Yes, that seems likely, but on the other hand, the memory requirements seem
> a little high. Isn't the default setting something like 20 meg? And that
> is blown with 30 tables, it seems a bit high. Actually it also seems to me
> that the memory requirements should not even be going linearly up with an
> increased amount of tables.
>
> Note that i have not studied the torque code, and so I do not know what I am
> talking about. It would however seem appropriate that someone who does
> could comment in a few lines on why the memory requirement is so huge.
I would also like to here some commentary. Some profiling information
would be great, too. Carl Ludewig actually has a profiling tool which
has been checked into the Velocity repository, if anyone is interested
in collecting this information with a minimum of effort...
--
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
