Re: JVM Sizing

Lew <lew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tris Orendorff <triso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, a 32 bit JVM could address up to 4 GB of memory. A 64 bit JVM could
address up to 2^34 GB of memory.

Tim Slattery wrote:
Why 2**34, that's only two bits more address space than the 4GB 32-bit
version?

2^34 is substantially larger than 4. Both were in units of GB.

2**32 = 4,294,967,296. 2**34 = 17,179,869,184 or 4 times 2**32.
substantially larger, yes, but 64-bit Windows systems, for example,
implement a 37-bit address space which allows for 137,438,953,472
bytes (128GB). Far more than anybody today contemplates installing in
their computer, but miniscule compared to an actual 64-bit address
space.

I just wondered why a 64-bit JVM expands the address space by only two
bits? I agree there's no reason to go all the way to 64-bits at this
point, but 34 bits doesn't seem reasonable to me.

--
Tim Slattery
Slattery_T@xxxxxxx
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: JVM Sizing
    ... Tim Slattery wrote: ... address up to 2^34 GB of memory. ... I agree there's no reason to go all the way to 64-bits at this ... John W. Kennedy ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • Re: 4GB of RAM tunning in windows xp professional xp sp2 with 32bi
    ... Not unless you have 64-bit hardware and software. ... Sounds like a good reason to check out 64-bit computing. ... Tim Slattery ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Product_Name
    ... be the reason that I"m getting the message? ... Lauria ... It's a programmer error. ... Tim Slattery ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Re: vista?
    ... If XP is doing the job to your satisfaction, ... no reason to go to the expense and grief of installing a new OS. ... Tim Slattery ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Memory Leaks?
    ... "Tim Slattery" wrote: ... > It's a programming mistake. ... > operating system. ... If a program asks for memory but doesn't return ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading