Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Meacham wrote:
>> perhaps if -M is not otherwise set, 'getrlimit(RLIMIT_AS,..)' could be >> called and the maximum heap size set to just under that Of course, it is commonly set to 'unlimited' anyway. Perhaps I should limit it; OTOH, the value must be less than 2Gb (signed int), which will soon be on the small side for a modern workstation. For my programs, I've found that setting -M to 80% of physical tends to work well. Beyond that, I get thrashing and lousy performance. (Perhaps programs mmap'ing large files etc can work well beyond physical memory? I'd be interested to hear others' experiences.) Quite often, I find the program will run equally well with smaller heap (presumably GC'ing harder?). I think it would be a good default to at least try as hard as possible to keep heap smaller than physical RAM. (Caveat: I'm on a Linux system which doesn't work wery well with heap sizes at the moment, so my observations may not apply.) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
