On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
> The 32-bit/64-bit issue affects purchasing or upgrading decisions
> - whether one wants to spend the money on buying cheaper
> 32-bit machines, versus more expensive 64-bit machines. That
> decision would be based on information available while *not* ha
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> [About Ncell sizes on 64-bit platforms.]
> In my build there is a chapter in the HTML manual
>
> Choosing between 32- and 64-bit builds
>
> in the top-level contents, and the information is in there.
Maybe the one on CRAN needs fixing...
http://cran.r-project.org
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Thomas Lumley wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
>> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
[About Ncell sizes on 64-bit platforms.]
>>> 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
>> co
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>> 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 t
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> 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 re
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen wrote:
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb RAM, as people (I
think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
It's a while since I actually har R used on such small machines, I thin
Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>
>>Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb RAM, as people (I
>>think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
>
> It's a while since I actually har R used on such small machines, I think
> 64 MB is quite acceptable now.
Liaw, Andy wrote:
> From: Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen
>
>>Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>>
>>>Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb
>>
>>RAM, as people (I
>>
>>>think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
>>
>>It's a while since I actually har R used on such small
>>machines, I th
From: Kjetil Brinchmann Halvorsen
>
> Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> > Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb
> RAM, as people (I
> > think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
>
> It's a while since I actually har R used on such small
> machines, I think
> 64 MB is quite accepta
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb RAM, as people (I
> think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
It's a while since I actually har R used on such small machines, I think
64 MB is quite acceptable now.
Kjetil
>
> Since then R has grown, and we h
Quite a while back we set the goal of running R in 16Mb RAM, as people (I
think Kjetil) had teaching labs that small.
Since then R has grown, and we has recently started to optimize R for
speed rather than size. I recently tested R-devel on my ancient Win98
notebook with 64Mb RAM -- it ran but
11 matches
Mail list logo
