Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:09:44 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Memory problem Message-ID: <20010228110944.C2327@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <230667FC62B4D311BBA90050DA41CFD759D3D2 AT ddipdc DOT ddi DOT nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <230667FC62B4D311BBA90050DA41CFD759D3D2@ddipdc.ddi.nl>; from p.boncz@datadistilleries.com on Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:26:56PM +0100 On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 12:26:56PM +0100, Peter Boncz wrote: >Hi Tony, > >NT is a bit more vulnerable regarding memory fragmentation than most Unixes. >If you want 450MB in one big array, it may happen that the memory space has >become so fragmented, there is no 450MB slot available anymore in the 2GB or >virtual memory space that you have at your disposition. Huh? No. Cygwin implements the standard unix sbrk() mechanism. I don't know why anything that is NT-specific would enter into this. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple