[racket] Racket Virtual Machine runs out of memory

From: Harry Spier (vasishtha.spier at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 20 14:21:15 EDT 2012

Thanks Eli,

I probably have to go the route you and others suggest.  But I think I
still have a problem.  Even the single operation of MagickExportPIxels
to export the pixel data of this page to manipulate fills at least 4/7
of the memory before failure.  And there is no guarantee that pages
wont have more pixel data.  They probably will.  And as Matthias says
the list doesn't seem "that large".

Also I have 4 or 5 transformation stages of the pixel data.  Will
putting in Garbage Collection commands to get rid of transformations
of the data I've already used help?

What sets the amount of memory the Racket virtual machine uses.  Is it
a Racket parameter, Is it a function of the amount of RAM in the
machine?  Is this more a Windows problem and will switching to Linux
help etc.?

Harry Spier

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 10 minutes ago, Harry Spier wrote:
>> #lang racket
>> (define l (time (build-list (* 7091 5023) (λ (x) 1))))
>> (system "PAUSE")
>> ABORTS with Racket Virtual Machine run out of memory
> IME, the exact size where things fail is not important -- if you're
> getting anywhere close to it, then you should revise the code to use
> less memory.
> There was the option that was raised for using integers, which might
> be inconvenient -- even with one (huge) integer for each row.
> Instead, I think that it would be convenient to use one big byte
> string for the whole array, and write some accessor functions to
> address the contents as a matrix.  The exact format of the byte string
> can be one byte per 1/0 pixel or even more compactly, one bit per
> pixel.  The choice should depend on whatever libraries you're using
> with the same data, to minimize translation work.  (Dealing with bits
> will make the access code a bit more complicated.)
> Currently, you're using one cons cell for each number, which is
> probably somewhere around 3 pointers -- which is about 12 bytes per
> bit.  So just a one byte for each number would be a 12x factor, with
> one bit per 1/0, you're at ~100x saving, which would be significant
> enough to reduce other processing times.
> --
>           ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                     http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.