lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) (07/28/90)
In <5513@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, vito@ucscb.UCSC.EDU writes: >Shouldn't a 686208K file fit into RAM? 686 Gigabytes? Wow! I wish. :-) Assuming you mean 686208 _bytes_, it will fit into 686208 bytes plus any overhead required. If you are using RAM: (not RAM), there is some overhead required for the name of the file, some pointers to it, and pointers to other entries in RAM: >I turn on my 1 meg A500 with a boot disk in it and hit ctrl-d. Then I try >to copy a 686208K file into ram and only 457344K fits into the RAM DISK before >I get a RAM DISK full message. Your 1 meg A500 has memory consisting of 512K FAST and 512K CHIP ram. The RAM: device requires contiguous memory for a file, I believe. -larry -- Sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips | | \X/ lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 -or- 76703.4322@compuserve.com | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
vito@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (07/29/90)
Shouldn't a 686208K file fit into RAM? I turn on my 1 meg A500 with a boot disk in it and hit ctrl-d. Then I try to copy a 686208K file into ram and only 457344K fits into the RAM DISK before I get a RAM DISK full message. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Cowell College, University of California, Santa Cruz // | | 0X >> Theta Chi Fraternity, Theta Iota Chapter << 0X \X/ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
black@beno.CSS.GOV (Mike Black) (07/29/90)
In article <5513@darkstar.ucsc.edu> vito@ucscb.UCSC.EDU () writes: >Shouldn't a 686208K file fit into RAM? > >I turn on my 1 meg A500 with a boot disk in it and hit ctrl-d. Then I try >to copy a 686208K file into ram and only 457344K fits into the RAM DISK before >I get a RAM DISK full message. > Sounds like you're using the original WorkBench copy. As I recall it uses a rather large buffer to copy files. So, your 686K file will be buffered in ram partially before being written to disk. I think you'll find the ARP copy command will do it for you. Mike... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : usenet: black@beno.CSS.GOV : land line: 407-494-5853 : I want a computer: : real home: Melbourne, FL : home line: 407-242-8619 : that does it all!: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (07/31/90)
In article <1827@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >Your 1 meg A500 has memory consisting of 512K FAST and 512K CHIP ram. The RAM: >device requires contiguous memory for a file, I believe. No, no. RAM: uses smaller chunks (8k I think). The older ram-handler (pre1.2) would allocate larger chunks (if it got some) and therefore eat most contigous memory blocks. The problem of the original writer (copy large file into ram) is caused by COPY allocating a larger buffer. This makes much sense for disk copies but won't allow RAM: to get all free memory. You can use the BUFFER option of the COPY command to allocate a smaller (or larger) buffer. Unfortunately it won't tell you if it does use your option. If the requested buffer is too small or too large it will simply ignore your preference. The BUFFER option isn't there in WB1.2. -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (07/31/90)
In article <1827@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes: >In <5513@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, vito@ucscb.UCSC.EDU writes: >>Shouldn't a 686208K file fit into RAM? > >686 Gigabytes? Wow! I wish. :-) > Try 686 Megabytes ;^) 686208K = 686.208M = .686208G -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
S.J.Raybould@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Simon Raybould) (08/02/90)
In article <104482@convex.convex.com> swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) writes: >Try 686 Megabytes ;^) > >686208K = 686.208M = .686208G > Actually 686208K = 670.125M = .65441894531G SJR