I wonder about 64 vs. 32 bit. With other development environments, when people note high memory usage I often see the vendor recommend switching from 64 to 32 bit.
Geoffrey S. Knauth http://knauth.org/gsk On May 28, 2011, at 10:50, Matthew Flatt <[email protected]> wrote: > At Thu, 26 May 2011 21:02:35 +0100, Jimmy Coyne wrote: >> I do have some concerns when it comes to memory requirements >> however. On Windows if I run a simple GUI program using code from the Racket >> Windows tutorial where a dialog box is shown with a push button (1.1 >> Creating windows), the private working set is 70 Megs , which is very large >> for such a small program. >> >> These exe was created by DrRacket “Create Executable ”. Am i doing >> something wrong? > > No, I think we have some work to do to improve Racket's memory > footprint. > > I see about 70 MB for a 64-bit Windows build or a 32-bit Mac OS X build > using the latest development version of Racket. A similar Java program > with Swing seems to take about 40 MB under Mac OS X in 64-bit mode. > > Just to make sure, since memory use varies considerably among recent > versions and platforms, can you say more about which version and > platform (64-bit vs. 32-bit) you're using? > > For example, I see a 70 MB working set under 64-bit Windows with the > latest development version, but I see about half that for 32-bit > Windows and version 5.1.1. For 32-bit Mac OS X, I see about a 70 MB > footprint for 32-bit development version, 95 MB for 64-bit development > version (and no significant difference for Cocoa vs. X), and 45 MB for > 32-bit version 5.1.1. > > The version difference has to do with new support for "places", which > reserves extra memory for communication among parallel tasks. The > Windows build tends to be more compact overall due to differences the > virtual memory API. A lot of memory use is the big language that you > get from `racket' as opposed to the core `racket/base'. Finally, some > memory goes into the new GUI toolkit, as opposed to the old GUI binding > of v5.0.2 and earlier. > > latest latest v5.0.2 > no places places [no places] > racket -l racket/base 8 MB 25 MB 8 MB > racket -l racket 22 MB 38 MB 20 MB > racket -l racket/gui/base 41 MB 55 MB 30 MB > racket -l racket/gui 48 MB 68 MB 36 MB > > Jay and Blake (@ BYU) are working on a whole-program compiler that can > shrink stand-alone executes by throwing out code that you don't use, > which will help solve problems with the big `racket' language. Kevin > and I should look more into limiting the cost of support for places > when places are not used. I should look into whether the new GUI > library is using more memory than necessary. > > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
