> * Duncan Murdoch <zheqbpu.qha...@tznvy.pbz> [2012-08-29 10:30:10 -0400]: > > On 29/08/2012 12:50 AM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> > * Duncan Murdoch <zheqbpu.qha...@tznvy.pbz> [2012-08-28 21:06:33 -0400]: >> > >> > On 12-08-28 5:55 PM, Sam Steingold wrote: >> >> >> >> my observation is that gc in R sucks. >> >> (it cannot release small objects). >> >> this is not specific to R; ocaml suffers too. >> > >> > Sorry, I didn't realize you were just a troll >> >> I am not. >> >> I am referring here to a very specific deficiency which plagues all >> non-moving GCs.
I guess "non-compacting GC" might be a more common expression. > I think you're a troll because you're making false statements, such as > that gc in R cannot release small objects, without any evidence in > support of them. This is common knowledge, discussed, e.g., here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.r.general:256174 Whether R GC "cannot release small objects" or "cannot reuse the fragmented memory after it releases the small objects" is inconsequential: R consumes RAM which it cannot use. Again, this is a common deficiency in all memory management systems which do not compact their storage; something studied in CS101. -- Sam Steingold (http://sds.podval.org/) on Ubuntu 12.04 (precise) X 11.0.11103000 http://www.childpsy.net/ http://iris.org.il http://americancensorship.org http://dhimmi.com http://openvotingconsortium.org http://truepeace.org Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ______________________________________________ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
