Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Hector Santos on 22 Mar 2010 18:21 >> If you have a 32 bit Windows OS, you are limited to just >> 2GB RAW ACCESS and 4GB of VIRTUAL MEMORY. > > Yes, and that is another thing. I kept saying that I have a > 64bit OS, and Joe kept forming his replies in terms of a > 32-bit OS. "thats another thing" - oh stop it. You did not keep saying that, in fact, I only recall ONCE where you said Windows 7 32bit QUAD 8GB machine. Did you compile your code for 64 bit or 32 bit? Are you fully 100% sure that all your VARIABLES and all the I/O with your variables is 64bit? Forgive me if I am wrong, but you have shown no programming or engineering tenacity whatsoever to indicate you know how to a) program or b) convert other people's code which I believe is all you have, to deal with 32 bit programming yet a lone 64bit programming. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 22 Mar 2010 18:23 Pete Delgado wrote: > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>> He has NO CLUE as to what a "memory-mapped file" actually is. This last >>> comment indicates >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_file >> Apparently I do. > > I think you would be far better served by looking at Windows specific > information on memory mapped files such as that which Joe suggested to you > some time ago: Richter's Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows 4th. And I suggested waaaaaaaay back in the beginning of this thread. :) I even gave him a link for a sweet CMemoryMapFile class at MSDN! -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 19:46 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:exGTQtgyKHA.3884(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Peter Olcott wrote: > >> You tell me all about pages faults, yet the process >> monitor >> reports zero page faults, and you continue to claim that >> its >> all about page faults, and virtual memory. > > > Its not a claim - its a fact. > >> Pages faults indicate victual memory usage right? > > > It shows when your PROCESS is asking too much the can > provide to you all in memory - it has to virtualize it. > >> A lack of page faults indicates a lack of virtual memory >> usage right? > > > No. If its zero or not changing and I know your process is > not, it means that your process working set is not > demanding more than it can handle or OTHER processes have > not chewed up memory, limiting your available memory. OK so zero page faults does not mean that virtual memory is not being used? (1) YES zero page faults means that virtual memory is not active on this process (2) Not (YES zero page faults means that virtual memory is not active on this process) Which is it (1) or (2) ??? Any hem hawing will be taken as intentional deceit > > You have NO control over this UNLESS you explicitly told > windows to use NO-CACHING, NO BUFFER I/O memory. > > Why do you refuse to believe this? Every Windows > programmer has to know this to some degree. > >> How does this not prove that my data is in memory and >> thus you are wrong when you say that my data is not >> resident in memory? > > > It doesn't. > > Allow a Technical Fellow Engineer at Microsoft explain it > all to you: > > Pushing the Limits of Windows: Physical Memory > http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx > > Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory > http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx > > Pushing the Limits of Windows: Paged and Nonpaged Pool > http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2009/03/26/3211216.aspx > > Are you going to argue with Mark too? > > -- > HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 22 Mar 2010 19:50 "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message news:ufEXU5gyKHA.5940(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Pete Delgado wrote: > >> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > > >>>> He has NO CLUE as to what a "memory-mapped file" >>>> actually is. This last comment indicates >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_file >>> Apparently I do. >> >> I think you would be far better served by looking at >> Windows specific information on memory mapped files such >> as that which Joe suggested to you some time ago: >> Richter's Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows >> 4th. > > And I suggested waaaaaaaay back in the beginning of this > thread. :) I even gave him a link for a sweet > CMemoryMapFile class at MSDN! > > -- > HLS I have proven that this is moot, and this proof continues to be ignored. I know you guys must be just messing with me because there are guys that are not just messing with me on several other groups. They can prove that they know what they are talking about by explaining how the underlying details fit together.
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 22 Mar 2010 19:59
See below... On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:27:48 -0500, "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote: > >"Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message >news:OIehRQgyKHA.4752(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> >> "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >> news:osWdnaGZ3q06RTrWnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in >>> message >>> news:ecdfq5lb57qrou47d1ppaupsi6t2guu7nv(a)4ax.com... >>>> **** >>>> He has NO CLUE as to what a "memory-mapped file" >>>> actually is. This last comment indicates >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-mapped_file >>> Apparently I do. >> >> I think you would be far better served by looking at >> Windows specific information on memory mapped files such >> as that which Joe suggested to you some time ago: >> Richter's Programming Applications for Microsoft Windows >> 4th. >> >> -Pete >> >> > >Joe kept insisting and continues to insist that my data is >not resident in memory. *** I do not recall asserting that; I pointed out that Windows pre-outpages unused pages and marks the slots for reuse, but that is not what you claim I stated. **** > >After loading my data and waiting twelve hours the process >monitor reports zero page faults, when I execute my process >and run it to completion. *** That is useful data, but has nothing to do with the multithreading question. IT only demonstrates that a tiny number of pages had been moved out (my recollection is you said 5 page faults, not zero). **** > >How does this not prove Joe is wrong (At least in the >specific instance of one execution of my process)? >(1) The process monitor is lying. >(2) Page faults do not measure virtual memory usage. > **** It says nothing about one execution; it says that under certain conditions, paging is not an issue. It does not say anything about using multiple threads on multiple cores within a single process. You seem to think it does. joe **** Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm |