Mpiktas <mpiktas at delfi.lt> wrote :>Something like memory.limit(512) will do the trickLuis Silva <lm.silva at sapo.pt> wrote :>I had that problem already. In windows I did this >C:\Programas\R\rw1060\bin\Rgui.exe --max-mem-size=400M >in the icon path of R. You'll have to try several sizes.I believe recent versions of R on Windows automatically set memory.limit to the size of physical memory. For instance, on my 512m machines a plain-vanilla install of R 1.6.1 returns> memory.limit()[1] 536264704 Also note these recent changes : http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/mail/r-announce/latest/0070.html R-1.6.0 is released o Command-line flags to set memory can now use the suffix `G' for gigabytes. The setting of maximum vsize is now only limited by the platform's address space. o Internally memory sizes and counts of cons cells are now stored in unsigned longs. This allows memory limits to be set and objects created in the range 2-4Gb on 32-bit platforms, and allows 64-bit platforms to use much larger amounts of memory. -------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me and permanently delete the original and any copy of any e-mail and any printout thereof. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. NOTICE regarding privacy and confidentiality Knight Trading Group may, at its discretion, monitor and review the content of all e-mail communications. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
Not quite! memory.limit only exists on Windows, and is not the same as --max-mem-size (which you probably never need to set on Windows).>From the CHANGES file for rw1060:The default memory limit has been raised to the smaller of 1Gb and the amount of physical RAM. (See the changes for rw1040 and rw1020 below.) On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Steve Wisdom wrote:> > Mpiktas <mpiktas at delfi.lt> wrote : > > >Something like memory.limit(512) will do the trick > > Luis Silva <lm.silva at sapo.pt> wrote : > > >I had that problem already. In windows I did this > >C:\Programas\R\rw1060\bin\Rgui.exe --max-mem-size=400M > >in the icon path of R. You'll have to try several sizes. > > I believe recent versions of R on Windows automatically set memory.limit to > the size of physical memory. For instance, on my 512m machines a > plain-vanilla install of R 1.6.1 returns > > > memory.limit() > [1] 536264704 > > Also note these recent changes : > > http://www.r-project.org/nocvs/mail/r-announce/latest/0070.htmlNot relevant, and in the NEWS file. -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:> > Not quite! > > memory.limit only exists on Windows, and is not the same as --max-mem-size > (which you probably never need to set on Windows). > > From the CHANGES file for rw1060: > > The default memory limit has been raised to the smaller of 1Gb and the > amount of physical RAM. (See the changes for rw1040 and rw1020 below.)Brian My limited understand of Windows memory management is that it cannot handle programs that are bigger than physical memory. Is my understanding correct, and thus the reason for the above limit? For this and other reasons I have tended to stick with Unix/Linux versions of R, and I am wondering if this should be seen as a Windows limitation or a limitation imposed by R in Windows. Thanks, Paul Gilbert -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Paul Gilbert wrote:> ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk wrote: > > > > Not quite! > > > > memory.limit only exists on Windows, and is not the same as --max-mem-size > > (which you probably never need to set on Windows). > > > > From the CHANGES file for rw1060: > > > > The default memory limit has been raised to the smaller of 1Gb and the > > amount of physical RAM. (See the changes for rw1040 and rw1020 below.) > > Brian > > My limited understand of Windows memory management is that it cannot handle > programs that are bigger than physical memory. Is my understanding correct, andNo. It has had virtual memory since ca 1990.> thus the reason for the above limit? For this and other reasons I have tended to > stick with Unix/Linux versions of R, and I am wondering if this should be seen > as a Windows limitation or a limitation imposed by R in Windows.Windows is very slow at using more that the physical RAM, especially on 16-bit Windows (which 95/98/ME are for this purpose). But it can do it. The reason for the 1Gb limit is to do with the limited total space Windows gives (2Gb or 3Gb across all processes). Yes, Linux on the same machine handles large amounts of memory better. But the gap is much less than it used to be. Brian -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk wrote:> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Paul Gilbert wrote:...> > My limited understand of Windows memory management is that it cannot handle > > programs that are bigger than physical memory. Is my understanding correct, and > > No. It has had virtual memory since ca 1990.Thanks. I had in mind that it was "limited virtual" in the sense that multiple programs could use more than physical memory, but any one program had to fit in memory. I guess that is not technically true, but it sounds like it is almost true for practical purposes. ...> The reason for the 1Gb limit is to do with the limited total space Windows > gives (2Gb or 3Gb across all processes).Does Windows (2000/XP) impose this limit even if there is more physical memory? Thanks again, Paul Gilbert -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Paul Gilbert wrote:> > The reason for the 1Gb limit is to do with the limited total space Windows > > gives (2Gb or 3Gb across all processes). > > Does Windows (2000/XP) impose this limit even if there is more physical memory?The 32-bit address space limit is 4Gb. Of that Windows NT reserves address space of 1Gb for itself in Server versions, 2Gb in workstation versions. Or so the docs say. The limits of 32-bit addressing are beginning to hit home, which is why the major workstation manufacturers went to 64-bit long ago. (Even my 1997 Sun can run 64-bit address spaces.) -- Brian D. Ripley, ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272860 (secr) Oxford OX1 3TG, UK Fax: +44 1865 272595 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at stat.math.ethz.ch _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._