From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D26BBAF for ; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:52:17 +0200 (CEST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtkGAJe7dkjUnw6FZWdsb2JhbACCOY92EgIeA51E X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,343,1212357600"; d="scan'208";a="13025009" Received: from pih-relay06.plus.net ([212.159.14.133]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 11 Jul 2008 10:52:17 +0200 Received: from [90.211.25.230] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay06.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1KHEMS-0002RN-8y for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:52:16 +0100 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: thousands of CPU cores Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:50:51 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <1215732802.48769c4277e80@webmail.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807110950.52327.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Plusnet-Relay: 55d87eb0ee1ea5009ccc1da1dd8992ef X-Spam: no; 0.00; bandel:01 in-berlin:01 pae:98 frog:98 threads:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 unix:01 oliver:01 oliver:01 caml-list:01 library:03 stories:95 msdn:05 usual:06 On Friday 11 July 2008 07:26:44 Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > On 10-07-2008, Oliver Bandel wrote: > > Using multi-processes instead of multi-threads is the > > usual way on Unix, and it has a lot of advantages. > > Threads-apologetes often say, threads are the ultimative > > technology... but processes have the advantage of encapsulation > > of the wohole environment of the program. > > There is also the fact that using multi process allow you to go further > than the memory limit per process... Yes. > (3GB for Linux/ Is that for 32-bit Linux? > 1GB for Windows)... 32-bit Windows XP has a 2Gb default process memory limit: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx 32-bit Windows Server can be increased to 3Gb. However, any serious power users will already be on 64-bit where these limits have been relegated to quaint stories your grandpa will tell you. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e