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=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85E91BC69 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:30:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailhost.tue.nl (mailhost.tue.nl [131.155.3.8]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l7EGUVOI003634 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:30:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.tue.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D2E6DA14; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:30:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at tue.nl Received: from mailhost.tue.nl ([131.155.3.8]) by localhost (kweetal.tue.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EMrJiwPXsTcm; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:30:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EXCHANGE3.campus.tue.nl (xserver4.campus.tue.nl [131.155.6.7]) by mailhost.tue.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807EC6D9FB; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:30:31 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Caml-list] Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml? Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:28:38 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Caml-list] Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml? Thread-Index: Acfej+YLJEc5Ul6vT2m9RC6GXz/1sgAAEUIn References: <20070814143423.GA29829@capsaicin.mamane.lu> <20070814161741.GA8221@capsaicin.mamane.lu> <20070814162559.GB1651@furbychan.cocan.org> From: "Koprowski, A." To: "Richard Jones" , "Lionel Elie Mamane" , X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 46C1D8A7.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 0200,:01 0200,:01 ocaml:01 uname:01 elephant:98 elephant:98 pae:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 exception:01 caml-list:01 caml-list:01 caml:02 caml:02 Dear Lionel, Thank you so much for your detailed instructions and help! And indeed = you are completely right, it's not a x86, I don't know what led me to = believe it was. And yes, we are talking about elephant here :-). All in = all, thank you so much for your time and help. I'll try to apply your = hints tomorrow and see whether I can get a 64-bit ocaml application up = and running. Best wishes, Adam -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jones [mailto:rich@annexia.org] Sent: Tue 8/14/2007 18:25 To: Lionel Elie Mamane; Koprowski, A.; caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Utilizing more than 4GB of memory in caml? =20 On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 06:17:41PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:36:27PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote: >=20 > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Lionel Elie Mamane [mailto:lionel@mamane.lu] >=20 > >> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 04:16:14PM +0200, Koprowski, A. wrote: >=20 > >>> I have a 32-bit linux machine with 48-bit addressing of its 128GB > >>> of RAM. I'd very much like to use this amount of memory; however > >>> I get Out_of_memory exception after ocaml consumes 4GB. Is there > >>> anything can do to get my hands on more than=20 >=20 > >> Run a 64 bit GNU/Linux on that machine, (...) >=20 > > Thanks for the suggestion but I'm afraid I cannot do that. This is > > a faculty server to which I only have a user access. >=20 > Type: > uname -m > in a shell. If the answer is x86_64, there are things you can do. If > it says i386, i486 or i686, all you can do is complain to the system > administrator (if you are in informatica, I presume that would be bcf > in room HG 8.73 - 8th floor of Hoofdgebouw; is the machine by any > chance elephant?). >=20 > In case of x86_64: How much manual hacking are you willing to do? Is this machine really x86-based? 32-bit x86 machines have at most 36-bit addresses (through PAE), although that is only usable through page tables, not to ordinary user processes. 64-bit x86-64 machines have 48-bit addressing in current incarnations so if they are running a 32-bit kernel or a 32-bit Xen domain they may fit the description, but the original poster is still s.o.l. My bet though is it's not x86 at all. Rich. --=20 Richard Jones Red Hat