- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 10:21, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 July 2013 10:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: >> >> On 09 Jul 2013, at 10:03, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9 July 2013 09:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>>>> stop wasting time on it? >>>>> >>>>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>>>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>>>> >>>>> And change this: >>>>> >>>>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>>>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>>>> #endif >>>>> >>>>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>>>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >>>> >>>> Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium >>>> so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. >>>> >>> >>> https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… >> >> Yeah ! Now users can set the limit themselves. >> >> And then they will come back complaining that certain things don't work when they raise the limit too high ;-) >> >> One day we will have a proper 64-bit VM. >> > Yes, i wish we can be there today. > (And one day people will learn a difference between actual memory used > and reserved address space :) > .. because reserving 512Mb for image which barely eats 30Mb is a huge waste. >>>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Enforcing uniqueness constraints in Voyage-Mongo

by raphonic

Ok, thanks for the quick reply! -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Enforcing-uniqueness-constraints-in-Voyage-Mongo-tp46… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 10:08, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 09 Jul 2013, at 10:03, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9 July 2013 09:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>>> >>>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>>> stop wasting time on it? >>>> >>>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>>> >>>> And change this: >>>> >>>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >>> >>> Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium >>> so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. >>> >> >> https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… > > Yeah ! Now users can set the limit themselves. > > And then they will come back complaining that certain things don't work when they raise the limit too high ;-) > > One day we will have a proper 64-bit VM. > Yes, i wish we can be there today. (And one day people will learn a difference between actual memory used and reserved address space :) >>> Stef >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Enforcing uniqueness constraints in Voyage-Mongo

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, no, it is still responsibility of the app level (yours) :) Esteban On Jul 9, 2013, at 10:00 AM, raphonic <raphonic(a)outlook.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how to set certain instance variables of my models to > be unique and also > if there is a mechanism to set other constraints(like presence of an > embedded object) in Voyage-Mongo. I searched the MongoDB docs and it says > that constraints should be implemented at the application level. Does Voyage > have > any support for setting constraints? > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Enforcing-uniqueness-constraints-in-Voyage-Mongo-tp46… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

>> >> > > If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like > freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on > conventional heap. > also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. But is it not the same on mac? I thought that it was a problem with the memory fragmentation on windows. Stef

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 09 Jul 2013, at 10:03, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 July 2013 09:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>> >>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>> >>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>> >>> >>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>> stop wasting time on it? >>> >>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>> >>> And change this: >>> >>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>> #endif >>> >>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >> >> Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium >> so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. >> > > https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… Yeah ! Now users can set the limit themselves. And then they will come back complaining that certain things don't work when they raise the limit too high ;-) One day we will have a proper 64-bit VM. >> Stef > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 10:01, Benjamin <benjamin.vanryseghem.pharo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8 July 2013 22:52, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I am with Doru here. > Today, 500MB is NOTHINGGGGGG. > NOTHIIIIIIIIING. > NOTHING. > A LATOP comes with 8GB. 16x more than the max the VM can allocate. > For one of my clients, I have just set up a server with 32GB. It has 64x > than the max a Pharo VM can allocate. Really? > Going to disk is not always a possibility for many many reasons. > And even if it were possible....if I have to spent XXX hours to workaround > Pharo because it cannot use more than 500MB, then people will simply move to > another language. > And finally, wasn't a language like Smalltalk prepare for you and let you > only focus in your app blah blah blah.. ? having to go to disk doesn't > sound like that... > > So, Igor, I cannot stand that point of view. I can stand many others, like > explaining why it's not Pharo fault, the problem window has, the money/time > it would take for an engineer to fix it, etc etc etc. But not your position. > > My point is that people should stop raising this topic again and again > and do something about it. > Either rewrite memory management in VM, to dynamically allocate address > space, > or rewrite own application to use disk memory. > > And i know that 512mb is nothing, especially for application which > deals with big amounts of data. > But from that perspective, 8GB is nothing as well. Be realistic: if > you need to generate/process lots of data, > you should not rely on just operative memory, it is pretty limited > resource, comparing to disk memory. > It was like that from the very beginning, and i think it will stay > like that for a while. > > > "640K ought to be enough for anybody." > -- Bill Gates > Ben, you wanted to add something constructive to discussion? > > > Cheers, > -- > Mariano > http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 09:50, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9 July 2013 09:13, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >>>>> >>>>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>>>> >>>>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>>>> >>>>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >>>> stop wasting time on it? >>>> >>>> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >>>> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >>>> >>>> And change this: >>>> >>>> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >>>> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >>>> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. >>> >>> Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) >>> >> >> If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like >> freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on >> conventional heap. >> also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. > > yep, but still could be doubled and have enough reserved memory for externals, I think. > In any case, we need a solution, 512m is obviously too small (no matter if 1G is still not enough, it would be a lot better). > > Not to extend memory because "is still not enough" is like not healing a guy because "he will be dead old anyway" :) > https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… please check >> >> >>> Esteban >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Igor Stasenko

On 9 July 2013 09:13, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: >>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>> >>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>> >>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>> >> >> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >> stop wasting time on it? >> >> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >> >> And change this: >> >> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >> #endif >> >> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. > > Igor this is a real issue and we are all fighting to get more members in the consortium > so that one day we can hire a guy like you to address it. > https://gitorious.org/cogvm/blessed/commit/341e6c2e150bcde80dfea6c890bab774… > Stef -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

July 9, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] More than 500MB for windows

by Benjamin

On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 July 2013 22:52, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I am with Doru here. >> Today, 500MB is NOTHINGGGGGG. >> NOTHIIIIIIIIING. >> NOTHING. >> A LATOP comes with 8GB. 16x more than the max the VM can allocate. >> For one of my clients, I have just set up a server with 32GB. It has 64x >> than the max a Pharo VM can allocate. Really? >> Going to disk is not always a possibility for many many reasons. >> And even if it were possible....if I have to spent XXX hours to workaround >> Pharo because it cannot use more than 500MB, then people will simply move to >> another language. >> And finally, wasn't a language like Smalltalk prepare for you and let you >> only focus in your app blah blah blah.. ? having to go to disk doesn't >> sound like that... >> >> So, Igor, I cannot stand that point of view. I can stand many others, like >> explaining why it's not Pharo fault, the problem window has, the money/time >> it would take for an engineer to fix it, etc etc etc. But not your position. >> > My point is that people should stop raising this topic again and again > and do something about it. > Either rewrite memory management in VM, to dynamically allocate address space, > or rewrite own application to use disk memory. > > And i know that 512mb is nothing, especially for application which > deals with big amounts of data. > But from that perspective, 8GB is nothing as well. Be realistic: if > you need to generate/process lots of data, > you should not rely on just operative memory, it is pretty limited > resource, comparing to disk memory. > It was like that from the very beginning, and i think it will stay > like that for a while. > "640K ought to be enough for anybody." -- Bill Gates > >> Cheers, >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

July 9, 2013