Board index » cppbuilder » Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?


2005-05-12 10:28:20 PM
cppbuilder113
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
With a setting, which was easy to do but the specifics of which
I have not memorized, Win 2000 and XP (possibly only the Pro
versions) will happily provide 3Gig for the application memory
space.

Add a /3GB switch to the boot record in "C:\Boot.ini" (hidden,
system, read only). This limits the OS to the upper 1 GB of the
virtual address space. Then add the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag to
the EXE.
This will work on W2K Advanced Server, W2K3 server and XP Pro.
The machine should 4 GB of physical RAM installed.
- Arnie
 
 

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

I had forgotten the 'secret codes' to do this. Thanks!
Quote
... Then add the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag to the EXE.
And that is something I do not know how to do. Is it a flag in the PE
header?
. Ed
Quote
Arnie wrote in message
news:42836873$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>With a setting, which was easy to do but the specifics of which I
>have not memorized, Win 2000 and XP (possibly only the Pro
>versions) will happily provide 3Gig for the application memory
>space.
>
Add a /3GB switch to the boot record in "C:\Boot.ini" (hidden,
system, read only). This limits the OS to the upper 1 GB of the
virtual address space. Then add the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag to the
EXE.

This will work on W2K Advanced Server, W2K3 server and XP Pro. The
machine should 4 GB of physical RAM installed.
 

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

Andrue Cope [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
If 64-bit machines and code can offer a significant boost then I can
see a lot of our customers making the change.
I think Athlon64/Opteron can really help you here. Maybe not so much
because they are 64 bits, but because they have a very good memory
controller. Now that dual core Opterons (at 65 nm) are out, you should
really look at that HW.
.a
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

I think Athlon64/Opteron can really help you here. Maybe not so much
because they are 64 bits, but because they have a very good memory
controller. Now that dual core Opterons (at 65 nm) are out, you
should really look at that HW.
Isn't Intel's memory controller as good ? And what about dual-core
Intel P4 Extremes / Zeons ?
Jonathan
 

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

Jonathan Benedicto wrote:
Quote
Isn't Intel's memory controller as good ? And what about dual-core
Intel P4 Extremes / Zeons ?
Nope. Athlon64/Opteron has the MC integrated on-chip. AMD has quite a
lead on Intel in the dual core and memory/system bus. AMD's dual core
offerings are available as of a month ago. Intel is not even close to
the wide availability.
.a
 

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:15:07 -0400
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>... Then add the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag to the EXE.

And that is something I do not know how to do. Is it a flag in the PE
header?
Yes, it's a backward compatibility thing. You only get 'it' (3GB) if you know that you can support it.
blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/8/12.aspx
Micha
 

Re:Re: How big are your BCB exes? How many of you really need 64 bit address spaces?

Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked that one!
. Ed
Quote
Micha Nelissen wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>>... Then add the LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag to the
>>EXE.
>
>And that is something I do not know how to do. Is it a flag in
>the PE header?

Yes, it's a backward compatibility thing. You only get 'it' (3GB)
if you know that you can support it.

blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/8/12.aspx