From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBEAFBB83 for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 11:26:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4L9Q5TA030578 for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 11:26:05 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA17682 for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 11:26:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from furbychan.cocan.org (furbychan.cocan.org [80.68.91.176]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k4L9Q1Ma030569 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 11:26:02 +0200 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1FhkCG-00007j-00 for ; Sun, 21 May 2006 10:26:00 +0100 Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 10:26:00 +0100 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Array 4 MB size limit Message-ID: <20060521092600.GA15039@furbychan.cocan.org> References: <20060515141230.ajyupn2z28k0484s@horde.akalin.cx> <446986DF.1070308@inria.fr> <446D5E4A.8060005@akalin.cx> <20060519162844.GA32550@osiris.uid0.sk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i From: Richard Jones X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4470322D.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 44703229.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; notepad:01 2006:98 regretted:98 wrote:01 caml-list:01 suggesting:02 bits:04 bits:04 processors:04 size:95 fri:05 problem:05 marketing:93 million:93 buy:92 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 06:17:38PM -0700, Frederick Akalin wrote: > I think that's an awfully simplistic point of view. My problem is > that I want to store more than 4 million items in an array. You're > suggesting moving to 64 bits? We moved our servers and development machines to 64 bits (AMD64 specifically) a while back and haven't regretted the decision at all. You can buy low-end 64 bit processors and motherboards for peanuts these days. Rich. -- Richard Jones, CTO Merjis Ltd. Merjis - web marketing and technology - http://merjis.com Team Notepad - intranets and extranets for business - http://team-notepad.com