On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:57:35PM -0700, Francesco Pietra wrote: > > 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.
Well the stack is only used for passing arguments to functions and for local variables in a function. Most large chunks of data are allocated using malloc which means it comes from the heap, not the stack. It takes a rather badly designed program to use 8MB of stack space. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
