From: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Eric Dahlman <edahlman@atcorp.com>
Cc: carette@mcmaster.ca, "'Richard Jones'" <rich@annexia.org>,
caml-list <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Out_of_memory exception in output_value
Date: 29 May 2004 17:13:26 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1085814805.3036.151.camel@pelican.wigram> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3037847D-B0E9-11D8-AF42-000393914EAA@atcorp.com>
On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 06:54, Eric Dahlman wrote:
> On May 28, 2004, at 2:44 PM, skaller wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be more system-friendly to try successively factors *2,
> >> *1.5,
> >> *1.1, and *1.05 before actually failing?
>
> I am not sure that it would have that much benefit for all of the
> complexity it would introduce.
I don't quite agree for the following reason: if something
fails when you're only using 50% of memory instead of 90%,
you're likely to be both puzzled and annoyed. In practice
this can make quite a difference at what sized problems
you can handle on your machine. It can also really trash out
a large server because malloc() is *required* to actually
allocate memory, not just address space.
Since allocations of this kind are rare the extra cost
doing a most sophisticated calculation isn't important.
As you point out though, the extra complexity is a real
problem: we could argue forever how to choose an optimial
calculation. Which is why I suggested the user be able
to do it. This delegates the complexity back to the
client and out of the library.
--
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850,
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-29 7:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-28 9:10 Richard Jones
2004-05-28 14:31 ` Richard Jones
2004-05-28 16:47 ` Jacques Carette
2004-05-28 19:44 ` skaller
2004-05-28 20:54 ` Eric Dahlman
2004-05-29 7:13 ` skaller [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1085814805.3036.151.camel@pelican.wigram \
--to=skaller@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=carette@mcmaster.ca \
--cc=edahlman@atcorp.com \
--cc=rich@annexia.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).