Hi, Noel.<br><br>Thanks for the quick reply.<br><br>Ah. If the GC needs
2X actual that would explain 2 GB --> 1 GB usable. That's a shame but
I understand.<br><br>Since I posted, my git bisect suggests it wasn't
my code that changed, instead there was some change from PLT 4 to
Racket. But next I need to install PLT 4 again to confirm.<br>
<br>FWIW, if you check the RAM graph in performance monitor on Windows
you see this:<br><br><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
______ kablooey</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> /|
/| / \/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> / | /
|/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">
<span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"> / |/</span><br style="font-family: courier new,monospace;"><span style="font-family: courier new,monospace;">/\/\/\/\/<br><br><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Yeah I'll keep my day job rather than
pursue a career in ASCII art. What I'm trying to convey is a gradually
rising sawtooth ("normal"). Then it enters a second phase of long slopes
up to 1 GB followed by a reclaim drop-off, then marching up again but
of course recovering less each time. And finally the third phase is this
frantic flatline. During which lots of little ~30 msec GCs (according
to DrRacket log) alternating with long, 5000 msec ones. Fourth phase is
the poor DrRacket GUI gets sluggish and then kablooey.<br>
<br>I'll re-install last PLT 4 version and see if it behaves differently
as I expect or if there's more to the story.<br><br>Greg<br></font></span><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Noel Welsh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:noelwelsh@gmail.com">noelwelsh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">The copying collector needs about as much space to copy into as it<br>
allocates. Hence Racket keeps about 1GB free of the 2GB it is<br>
allocated. (This was certainly the old behaviour, but I thought it was<br>
made a bit less conservative so perhaps something else is going on.)<br>
<br>
HTH,<br>
<font color="#888888">N.<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Greg Hendershott<br>
<<a href="mailto:greghendershott@gmail.com">greghendershott@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Regardless, the DrRacket process never seems to exceed about 1,069,999<br>
> bytes (Windows 7 64-bit).<br>
><br>
> My understanding is that 32 bit processes on Win64 should get 2 GB (I<br>
> have 4 GB physical). So why is it maxing out at just under 1 GB?<br>
</div>>...<br>
</blockquote></div><br>