On 9/15/05, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 15 September 2005 01:04, Karl Grapone wrote:> I'm considering using haskell for a system that could, potentially,> need 5GB-10GB of live data.> My intention is to use GHC on Opteron boxes which will give me a max
> of 16GB-32GB of real ram. I
Hello Simon,
Thursday, September 15, 2005, 2:42:44 PM, you wrote:
>> of 16GB-32GB of real ram. I gather that GHC is close to being ported
SM> It'll be a good stress test for the GC, at least. There are no reasons
SM> in principle why you can't have a heap this big, but major collections
SM> ar
On 15 September 2005 14:48, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
> Should one interpret this as GHC now targets 64-bit systems or does
> one need to employ some sort of clevernesss to use this much memory?
> (I posted this question a while ago and was told that GHC did not at
> that time support 64-bit so
Should one interpret this as GHC now targets 64-bit systems or does
one need to employ some sort of clevernesss to use this much memory?
(I posted this question a while ago and was told that GHC did not at
that time support 64-bit so could not use that much memory)
On a related note, does GHC n
On 15 September 2005 01:04, Karl Grapone wrote:
> I'm considering using haskell for a system that could, potentially,
> need 5GB-10GB of live data.
> My intention is to use GHC on Opteron boxes which will give me a max
> of 16GB-32GB of real ram. I gather that GHC is close to being ported
> to am
Hello,
I'm considering using haskell for a system that could, potentially,
need 5GB-10GB of live data.
My intention is to use GHC on Opteron boxes which will give me a max
of 16GB-32GB of real ram. I gather that GHC is close to being ported
to amd64.
Is it a realistic goal to operate with a heap
