On increasing the size of the molecule treated, the procedure immediately crashed with error message
what (): St9bad_alloc Failure of the () operator was attributed by the program developers to memory exhausion (UMA system, 4 dual-opteron 875, ecc 24GB, of which 1 for debian amd64 etch, set with shmmax). On request I showed ulimit -a core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited max nice (-e) 0 file size (blocks, -f) unlimited pending signals (-i) unlimited max locked memory (kbytes, -l) unlimited max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited open files (-n) 1024 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8 POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) unlimited max rt priority (-r) 0 stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192 cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) unlimited virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited file locks (-x) unlimited The comment was: The item that is suspiciously small is the stack size. Did you try to set it to unlimited? I did, with ulimit -s unlimited though, () failure was not solved. I am still investigating the issue. >From that, I extrapolated (now clearly wrongly) that setting stack size to >unlimited may be beneficial to have all available memory used in >memory-demanding computation. Thanks francesco pietra --- On Tue, 4/22/08, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: stack size > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: "amd64 Debian" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2008, 10:04 AM > Francesco Pietra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > With amd 64 etch (NUMA 4 dual-opteron, 24 GB RAM, set > with shmmax) it was suggested (for heavy calculations) to > set 'stack size' to 'unlimited'. > > > > At each new boot, I do that with > > > > $ ulimit -s unlimited > > > > thus changing the stack size from usual 8192 kbytes. > If there is no drawback in setting 'stack size' to > u'nlimited', how do set that permanently? > > > > Thanks > > francesco pietra > > Who suggested such a thing? The only reason to change the > stack limit > would be when you have some application that segfaults with > a stack > overflow without that being a bug. The stack limit is > helpfull in > catching programms running into an endless recursion early > so I > wouldn't change it. > > The drawback of an unlimited stack size is that a simple > endless > recursion will eat up all your memory until the > out-of-memory killer > gets triggered. > > MfG > Goswin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
