On 10/10/2011 04:55 AM, Duncan wrote:
Ron Johnson posted on Sun, 09 Oct 2011 22:15:24 -0500 as excerpted:
On 10/09/2011 09:58 PM, Lacrocivious Acrophosist wrote:
Ron Johnson<ron.l.johnson@...> writes:
[64-bit pan]
One of the first things that I did was try out Pan on a binary group.
Many hours later, it had fetched 6 weeks of headers and consumed 6.8GB
of RAM. The 2+ years of data in Giganews would require 123GB of RAM.
:(
[I]s this 64-bit performance different from 32-bit performance
It's a fact that 32-bit Pan runs out of *process* address space at
around 2GB. 64-bit Pan doesn't technically have that problem, but
effectively it does, although it does for all practical intents.
Well, the 32-bit part isn't quite accurate, or at least it's accurate for
only a subset of 32-bit.
It's completely accurate for the set of people who use pre-built Debian
and Ubuntu kernels.
--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
