"maximum buffer size exceeded" in 64-bit emacs 22.1.1 (64G RAM)
Mike
little surprised that it didn't work. This is with emacs 22.1.1,
compiled 64-bit (part of a Red Hat distribution).
Is this supposed to work? Is there any reason why it shouldn't?
Evans Winner
I recently tried opening a 5GB file
It had to happen sometime. someone opened the complete
works of... everybody in history concatenated into a single
file.
on a 64GB RAM machine
So, uh, is that standard these days? What kind of machine
is it? Where can I get one cheap?
Is this supposed to work? Is there any reason why it
shouldn't?
I'm sorry this is a totally content-less reply. I just
couldn't help myself.
But there is an emacswiki page that might be useful[1].
Perhaps the OS is not really prepared to grant all 64Gb of
memory to that one process. Even with 8 bits used for lispy
things that I didn't really pause to read carefully, I would
think 64 bit addressing gives you over 7Gb, right?
Footnotes:
[1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFileSizeLimit
Xah Lee
> [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFileSizeLimit
yeah, this is a frequently asked problem. It was discussed by emacs
developers here now and there, but as far as i know it's not something
active for fix.
i think it might be intuitive to look at what's the max file size
other editor supports, so we can get a sense how emacs does in
comparison.
i don't have much data on this... but from experience in 2000, i think
i was able to open large files in vi, but not in emacs. (the file size
was prob a hundred megabyte or more) From my experience of using
BBEdit/TextWrangler, i doubt it can do better than emacs, and same for
MicrosoftWord. It is also my guess that Eclipse, JEdit, Xcode, are
probably all worse than emacs in this regard...
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
Mike
> I recently tried opening a 5GB file
>
> It had to happen sometime. someone opened the complete
> works of... everybody in history concatenated into a single
> file.
Yeah, bioinformatics is like that. :-) I imagine there are a lot of
scientific disciplines that have voluminous experimental output. Not
to mention the CIA...
> on a 64GB RAM machine
>
> So, uh, is that standard these days? What kind of machine
> is it? Where can I get one cheap?
At Wal-Mart, about eight years from now. Seriously, though--yes, I'm
spoiled, but trying to get things fixed for the poor chaps that will
be following after me.
> But there is an emacswiki page that might be useful[1].
> Perhaps the OS is not really prepared to grant all 64Gb of
> memory to that one process. Even with 8 bits used for lispy
> things that I didn't really pause to read carefully, I would
> think 64 bit addressing gives you over 7Gb, right?
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsFileSizeLimit
I looked at the page, and like everything else that google turned up,
it seems to be dated. It would seem that there ought to be a very
straightforward way to get huge buffers on a 64-bit, 64G machine.
It's not an OS issue--I can create 32GB+ strings in Python on this
machine.
I'll send in a bug report and see what that draws.
(Thanks also to Xah for your reply.)
Mike
Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
>
> I recently tried opening a 5GB file on a 64GB RAM machine and was a
> little surprised that it didn't work. This is with emacs 22.1.1,
> compiled 64-bit (part of a Red Hat distribution).
Are you sure that Emacs is a 64-bit binary? What does "file emacs"
say?