 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Chris Cason
Subject: Re: new hardware configuration question ??
Date: 7 Oct 2001 12:09:55
Message: <3bc07e53@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Again you can allocate a full 4Gb, you'll get some hideous disk
> thrashing from doing it, but it'll work (most of the time).
Not correct; Win9x and 2000/ME/XP have a hard limit of 2gb per application
(due to the limit of virtual address space; the upper two gigs is reserved
for the system). Whether or not 9x can physically handle that much RAM I
can't say - the info above is purely related to the technical limit that
the OS designers placed upon application memory partitioning.
Win2k advanced server allows 3gb per application (it reserves "only" one
gigabyte for the system).
This 2gb limit is kinda scary when you consider that we have already seen
at least one POV image that uses more than half of that ... for users of
consumer Microsoft OS's, once scenes start hitting 2gb, no amount of RAM
will help the problem (POV will just fail with a memory allocation error).
Bill Gates 1981: "No application will ever need more than 640k of RAM".
Sidekick: "And besides, home users could never afford that much!"
Bill Gates 1991: "No application will ever need more than 2gb of RAM".
Sidekick : "And besides, home users could never afford that much!"
sigh.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: new hardware configuration question ??
Date: 7 Oct 2001 13:22:15
Message: <3BC0901F.CE4DEF44@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> This 2gb limit is kinda scary when you consider that we have already seen
> at least one POV image that uses more than half of that ... for users of
> consumer Microsoft OS's, once scenes start hitting 2gb, no amount of RAM
> will help the problem (POV will just fail with a memory allocation error).
>
As long as Dell&Co continue selling Pentium 4 PC's with 128 Mb RAM there
is no danger. ;-)
I think you are quite right, even presuming that you can use full 4 Gb on
other OS's the limit will come at least within about the next two years.
Let's hope that at that time there are cheap 64bit systems available.
And BTW:
No application will ever need more than 16 Million TeraByte of RAM
(Anyone who wants to know how much you would pay for that?)
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmx de>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> As long as Dell&Co continue selling Pentium 4 PC's with 128 Mb RAM there
> is no danger. ;-)
>
Compaq actually sells a 1.533 GHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM for 1249 $ IIRC.
My own 3 months old system can handle only 1.5 GB RAM at maximum and I
wanted to take advantage of the low RAM prices.
But even with some tricks, Win98SE works only with 1 GB RAM. :-(
I hope my next scenes memory usage grows slower than in the past.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> And BTW:
> No application will ever need more than 16 Million TeraByte of RAM
> (Anyone who wants to know how much you would pay for that?)
Just for reference, a thousand Terabytes would be an Exabyte. I have
no idea what comes after that, though.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: new hardware configuration question ??
Date: 7 Oct 2001 16:39:17
Message: <3BC0BE28.FA34043A@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Timothy R. Cook" wrote:
>
> Just for reference, a thousand Terabytes would be an Exabyte. I have
> no idea what comes after that, though.
>
Are you sure about that?
According to my reference: 10^12=tera, 10^15=peta, 10^18=exa
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > Just for reference, a thousand Terabytes would be an Exabyte.
> > I have no idea what comes after that, though.
> Are you sure about that?
> According to my reference: 10^12=tera, 10^15=peta, 10^18=exa
Hmm ok, missed one. Still no idea what comes after exa ;)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Timothy R. Cook" wrote:
>
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > > Just for reference, a thousand Terabytes would be an Exabyte.
> > > I have no idea what comes after that, though.
>
> > Are you sure about that?
> > According to my reference: 10^12=tera, 10^15=peta, 10^18=exa
>
> Hmm ok, missed one. Still no idea what comes after exa ;)
zetta followed by yotta -
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci499008,00.html
--
Ken Tyler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: new hardware configuration question ??
Date: 7 Oct 2001 17:11:35
Message: <3BC0C5EE.FED0E1D@gmx.de>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote:
>
> Compaq actually sells a 1.533 GHz Athlon with 512 MB RAM for 1249 $ IIRC.
> My own 3 months old system can handle only 1.5 GB RAM at maximum and I
> wanted to take advantage of the low RAM prices.
I guess that's the maximum of most current (Athlon) boards anyway, 3x512Mb
modules.
> But even with some tricks, Win98SE works only with 1 GB RAM. :-(
>
I think for Povray renders requiring much memory Windows (98) is not the
best system anyway.
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Cason <newsadmin-despam-@povray-no-spam.org> wrote:
: This 2gb limit is kinda scary
This is quite curious because, AFAIK, the hardware limit in intel processors
(and clones) is currently at 64 GB (of course you can only address 4 GB at
a time because pointers are 32 bits long, but the whole 64 GB memory can be
used with some hardware paging mechanism).
On the other hand, we should not be so harsh about Windows in this specific
case. I have no idea what is the memory limit in Linux, but I wouldn't be
very surprise if it was 4 GB as well... If someone knows better, it would be
interesting to know.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Mark Wagner
Subject: Re: new hardware configuration question ??
Date: 8 Oct 2001 00:06:37
Message: <3bc1264d@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote in message <3bc0d6a6@news.povray.org>...
> On the other hand, we should not be so harsh about Windows in this
specific
>case. I have no idea what is the memory limit in Linux, but I wouldn't be
>very surprise if it was 4 GB as well
As of when I last compiled the kernel (version 2.2.x), I could choose a
limit of 2 GB or 4 GB.
--
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
