Prof Brian Ripley wrote: <snipped> > That's a different question. I said RAM, you quote virtual. I am > suprised at your figure though, as I am used to seeing 40-50Mb virtual > at startup on an Opteron.
I am somewhat surprised by it as well. But there is nothing unusual about the build - it is just rebuilding the rpm on CRAN on a FC4 system with everything as shipped, and should be quite reproducible. I'll probably have a better look in time. "R --vanilla" doesn't improve. Still 90+ MB virtual, 20+MB resident. > The distinction is important: even those small Windows machines had 100s > of Mb of virtual memory available, it was RAM that was in short supply. Yes and no. Virtual means it will possibly be used - and it is a big gray scale between unresponsible/intolerably-slow and slow. >> There are correponding increases with Python and Perl as well; I >> suspect R suffers a bit on 64-bit >> platform due to extensive use of pointers internally. The fundamental >> unit in R, SEXP, is 6 pointers + 1 int, (and another >> pointer for itself). So I would probably say 64MB is questionable on >> 64-bit, but then probably nobody is stupid enough to do that... > > > We know: we even document it in the appropriate places. I went and have a look - it is the last section of R-admin (and of course, for those who "read the source", R/include/Rinternals.h). It would be good to mention this in the FAQ (which it doesn't, or maybe I didn't look hard enough), or the beginning of R-admin? > Some of us were running 64-bit R last century on machines with 128Mb > (and others with much more, of course). When I tried in 1997, Solaris > would not run in 64-bit mode with 64Mb RAM (which then cost £1000 or so). > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
