World: r3wp
[!REBOL3]
older newer | first last |
Kaj 10-Dec-2010 [6507x8] | I've always needed it to run on both Syllable and Linux. I finally got R3 to work on Syllable a year ago, but it had proved buggy when porting my CMS |
Most things I still can't do with it, because there's no GUI | |
Then eventually, the open source issue will remain, because I can't use it for Syllable system tools | |
The lack of GUI means only web apps can be made, but there wasn't an acceptable web framework for REBOL | |
I used QuarterMaster in the past year, but I can't take that and Cheyenne with me now that R3 finallt starts working | |
Hence I'm forced to make my own CMS | |
And I'm forced to keep it working on both R2 and R3, so I can't use new R3 features | |
Not exactly a sales story, is it? | |
Awi 12-Dec-2010 [6515] | Is there anything like WAIT/ANY [3 read http://www.rebol.com]. It would either return none if 3 seconds elapsed, or the content of www.rebol.com ? |
Maxim 12-Dec-2010 [6516] | as in a timeout? |
Kaj 13-Dec-2010 [6517] | I guess so. I think it has to be programmed by opening in async mode |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6518] | yeah, I did a few tests using async, but its a bit tricky, nothing as elegant as what Awi proposes/asks |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6519] | is there a way that I can do to pre-allocate a huge file? Pre-allocated file will have a continuous disk space, which makes seeking fast. |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6520x2] | something like? : write %file head insert "" 1000000 |
oops... write %file head insert/dup "" " " 1000000 | |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6522] | Maxim, I am not sure if doing that will have a continuous disk space. Why don't we have something like this: make %file 100000000 |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6523] | usually it will depend on disk fragmentation. I'm not sure all OS allow you to force a contiguous disk area. on any OSes which allow it, it could be a good suggestion for R3. |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6524] | Actually, I am making a NoSQL in R3 for Chinese Social Network Analysis. I have more than 20,000,000 records, and every records might need a few KB. |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6525x2] | you should post a CC wish ticket for it. |
(and its a good idea to give some details as to why you need (in the CC ticket) this in order to give persepective on the ticket) | |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6527] | When data are not much, my NoSQL was very fast, I called it Lightning DB. Now with so much data, It's very slow, and I call it Snail DB. :-( |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6528] | 20,000,000 * 1kb * n = a massive file! :-) |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6529] | OK, I will post this wish in CC. |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6530] | are you sure its related to fragmentation? |
Jerry 13-Dec-2010 [6531] | Well... I am 95 % sure. By the way, Every column of every table has its own one or two huge files. I didn't put all the data in a single file. |
Steeve 13-Dec-2010 [6532] | As far I remember It's working with R2 if you write the %file past the end, it's filled with #{00]. I remember having asked the same feature in R3 one year ago at least (in the R3 chat) |
Oldes 13-Dec-2010 [6533] | Are you sure it must be in one file? |
BrianH 13-Dec-2010 [6534] | Thanks again, Jerry, for pushing the resource usage limits of R3. http://issue.cc/r3/1799is about reallocating a 256+ MB map! to an even larger map!, and then getting a slowdown probably because of virtual memory use. We really need tasks so this can go on in the background :) |
Andreas 13-Dec-2010 [6535] | More likely a 512+MB map. |
BrianH 13-Dec-2010 [6536] | I think the problem was a realloc from 256+MB to 512+MB, which would temporarily have 768+MB in memory, plus a hash table recalculation. |
Andreas 13-Dec-2010 [6537] | If a single R3 value slot is 128bit and a map needs two value slots for each (key, value) pair: (128 / 8) * 2 * (2 ** 24) / (1024 ** 2) == 512.0 |
BrianH 13-Dec-2010 [6538x2] | Weird, I did a similar calculation and got 256. I should revise my comment. |
Oh right, I put a 16 in there when it should have been a 32. | |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6540] | so should maps allow to be pre-allocated like series? |
Andreas 13-Dec-2010 [6541x3] | They are already. |
m: make map! n | |
Well, at least that allocates _something_ :) | |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6544] | hehe |
Pekr 13-Dec-2010 [6545x2] | :-) |
So is it about the initial sufficient prediction of programmer allocating enough of memory, or is there some artificial limit for the map size? | |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6547x2] | its about the fact that some things have to be arrays in ram, and if you don't make them big enough to begin with eventually, you have to live with this sort of "cleanup' |
REBOL didn't crash so I'd assume it did its job correctly. but a few tests might prove that something is not optimal. | |
Pekr 13-Dec-2010 [6549] | Why do guys need so large map array? Don't you remember Bill Gates once said, that 640KB is enough for everyone? :-) |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6550x3] | this seems to prove that pre-allocating maps does indeed store all the space required: >> stats == 921576 >> m: make map! 20000000 == make map! [ ] >> stats == 909353688 |
Jerry, you might want to try the above and see if the wait occurs on the 21 millionth item. | |
(20 millionth item + 1) | |
Andreas 13-Dec-2010 [6553] | I'm with Brian in that most likely the only thing "not optimal" is the amount of RAM in Jerry's system. |
Maxim 13-Dec-2010 [6554x2] | yep! |
if the pre-allocation fixes the setup. then there's no bug in REBOL. | |
Andreas 13-Dec-2010 [6556] | Preallocation won't help with insufficient memory :) |
older newer | first last |