Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:53:20 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: "'cygwin@cygwin.com'" Subject: Re: Memory problem Message-ID: <20010228135320.E2327@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: "'cygwin@cygwin.com'" References: <230667FC62B4D311BBA90050DA41CFD759D3D6@ddipdc.ddi.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <230667FC62B4D311BBA90050DA41CFD759D3D6@ddipdc.ddi.nl>; from p.boncz@datadistilleries.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:12:25PM +0100 On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 06:12:25PM +0100, Peter Boncz wrote: > >Christopher, > >My statement is about NT vs Unix, and has nothing to do with Cygwin (or its >sbrk implementation). > >This is just me speaking out of experience with the exacltly the same >(memory hungry) application on NT and on various Unixes. My experience is >that the VirtualAlloc() implementation in NT is more prone to fragmentation >on the long run than e.g. mmap() on Solaris and AIX. Just think that a >request for a 450MB array can be impeded by just 4 small blocks of used >virtual memory in awkward places. Mentioning VirtualAlloc in this context makes no sense. The use of VirtualAlloc is hidden from the user. There have been posts here which mention how to increase the size of Cygwin's heap which is a monotonic block of memory. Search for the word "heap_chunk_in_mb" in the mailing list archives for instructions on how to increase the heap size. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple