On Sat 24 May 2008 at 10:27:57 PM -0400, George Georgalis wrote:
>On Sat 24 May 2008 at 08:04:03 AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
>
>Well we have been digging a little deeper, here is a ktrace
>http://pastebin.ca/1028465
>
I didn't see this part of your responce before...
>>> However, isn't the
On Sat 24 May 2008 at 08:04:03 AM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> The test has warned you about a problem with your OS,
Well we have been digging a little deeper, here is a ktrace
http://pastebin.ca/1028465
there is lots of checks/warnings that the stack limit is
getting close, but when R hits
The test has warned you about a problem with your OS, and I have already
told you how to solve it. If you don't want to do that, the test will
continue to remind you.
On Fri, 23 May 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
On Thu 22 May 2008 at 07:09:51 PM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
Why not raise
On Thu 22 May 2008 at 07:09:51 PM +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> Why not raise your limits to more reasonable levels? These failures are
> warning you that your limits (stack, it looks) are too low.
These are the default netbsd levels (soft limit). As a user I
can raise the stack to 3072 and
Why not raise your limits to more reasonable levels? These failures are
warning you that your limits (stack, it looks) are too low.
We do know from experience on Windows that a 2Mb stack limit is too low,
and recommend 10Mb (and that is on a 32-bit system).
Also, the descriptors limit should
