Re: JVM Sizing
- From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:40:00 -0500
Tim Slattery wrote:
Lew <lew@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tris Orendorff <triso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Tim Slattery 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.Why 2**34, that's only two bits more address space than the 4GB 32-bit2^34 is substantially larger than 4. Both were in units of GB.
version?
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.
Read it again. He said:
32 bits gives 4 GB (4 gibibytes, actually)
64 bits gives 2^34 GB (again, it should be GiB)
2^34 GiB = 16,777,216 tebibytes = 16,384 pebibytes = 16 exbibytes
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: JVM Sizing
- From: John Ersatznom
- Re: JVM Sizing
- References:
- JVM Sizing
- From: Gilbert Ostlethwaite
- Re: JVM Sizing
- From: Tris Orendorff
- Re: JVM Sizing
- From: Tim Slattery
- Re: JVM Sizing
- From: Lew
- Re: JVM Sizing
- From: Tim Slattery
- JVM Sizing
- Prev by Date: Re: which collection to use
- Next by Date: Re: Firefox 2.0.0.1 trashes Java Console
- Previous by thread: Re: JVM Sizing
- Next by thread: Re: JVM Sizing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|