|
How much memory can be consumed for a process that is running in
a) 32 bit environment
b) 64 bit environment
Is it 2G( less than ) per process? If so, is there any reason for such a limitation?
Suppose process is running with 2GB RAM. And if I am upgrading the RAM to 4GB, will there be any change in max memory?
|
|
|
|
|
Under 32 bit versions of Windows, most of the time processes are limited to 2GB of memory. You can specify the /3GB[^] switch in the BOOT.INI file for Windows XP and Server 2003 to increase that limit to 3GB.
For a comparison of 32 and 64 bits, try reading here[^].
|
|
|
|
|
There may be two parts to your question:
1. the amount of logical memory (the virtual memory address space) you can get, that is 2GB (sometimes 3GB) on Win32 (i.e. 50 to 75% of the theoretical 2^32). and a lot more on Win64 (not sure, could be up to 4000 times as much). That is individual to each process.
2. the amount of physical memory (how much real memory your app is allowed to use) your process is actually getting; this depends on other processes are running and doing. The sum over all processes cannot exceeed the amount of physical memory; all virtual excess will be swapped to disk (and may cause significant delays).
So if you have two or more processes aiming for lots of memory, and your system is Win32 with 3GB of RAM, each process is likely to get no more than 1GB of physical memory. By minimizing one's main form, the other may get some more.
ADDED
Here[^] are some more facts for different Windows editions.
/ADDED
|
|
|
|
|
I am making a desktop application that is supposed to read data sent via Http and i have no idea how to begin it. I have made a distributed application that read data from TCP by using TcpClient classes but this is a different thing all together. Where do i even begin?
Wamuti: Any man can be an island, but islands to need water around them!
Edmund Burke: No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look at the WebRequest[^] class or you could use WCF
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
|
|
|
|
|
I am developing a control that displays a grid of pictures. I want to be able to select a picture by clicking on it, and change its appearance (eg. with a border) to show that it is selected. I have created:
1. a class derived from UserControl that contains a PictureBox for the picture
2. a class derived from FlowLayoutPanel to contain the pictures. This overrides CreateControlsInstance() to return an instance of...
3. a class derived from Control.ControlCollection to contain the picture objects. This overrides the Add(Control value) method in order to add a handler to the Click event of the control being added to the collection. It also contains the click event handler, and this is where my problem lies:-
It seems to me that the logical next step is for the click event handler to identify the control that has been clicked (no problem) and to call its Select() method, which will then alter the appearance of the control as required. The problem is that Control.Select() cannot be overridden. This raises two questions:
Q1: what does Control.Select() actually do?
Q2: how do I implement the change in appearance of the control. Obviously I could just set the UserControl.BorderStyle property from within the click handler in collection class, but surely an object should make its own decision as to how it looks when it is selected.
I can only assume that I've misunderstood something, or am doing it all the wrong way. Can anyone advise?
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Is there a way to build a join query that combains 3 tables?
how i translate this into linq-
SELECT a.au_lname, a.au_fname, t.title
FROM authors a INNER JOIN titleauthor ta
ON a.au_id = ta.au_id JOIN titles t
ON ta.title_id = t.title_id
WHERE t.type = 'trad_cook'
ORDER BY t.title ASC
Can someone please help me? 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not an expert in linq to sql but
it works with objects/lists. Try:
var query = from a in context.Authors
join ta in context.TitleAutors on a.au_id == ta.au_id
join t in context.Titles on ta.title_id == t.title_id
orderby t.Title
select new { LastName = a.au_lname, FirstName = a.au_fname, Titel = t.title;}
I bug
|
|
|
|
|
nope, dosen't work 
== replaced by equals
|
|
|
|
|
what's the error message you get?
I bug
|
|
|
|
|
i doesn's get any error,
but query dosen't return the write result.
|
|
|
|
|
hi guys
i wanna a pattern to find number of html control in page
i test this pattern but thers no result:
@"^<\s*["+pattern+@"]{1}\s(\s*\w*\s*\W*\s*\d*\s*)*/>$"
that pattern is a variable that contain like img,input and so on
modified on Sunday, August 15, 2010 4:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
we happen to have a Regular Expressions forum since a couple of weeks, maybe you better ask there.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, what Luc said, also this[^].
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
Is there some class / library on .net framework that i can use to activate the webCam directly ?
I want to activate the webCam and have the ability to take snapshot in real time.
Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, all,
I have a class("Parent") that keeps a dictionary of items of another class("Child"), which I am trying to make generic.
I don't want to make Parent generic, but it needs to know the type to pass to the dictionary constructor:
Dictionary _d = New Dictionary(Of String, Child(of ____))
I could just use Object, but that would defeat the purpose.
I was hoping something like:
Type _childType = (typeof constructorParam)
and then...
Dictionary _d = New Dictionary(Of String, Child(of _childType))
...would work. Instead, the compiler says 'Type _childType' is not defined.
I am hoping there is an easy way to do this  Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
I see a lot of syntax here that does not make sense in C#, is this really a C# question?
Anyway, in C#, you can not use typeof(something) as type argument to something generic. Why don't you want to make Parent generic? This seems to be one of the many "I want to do something but I don't want to use the solution"-questions.. If you make Parent<T> generic, often you won't even need to make the type argument explicit, because one of the arguments of the ctor is of type T (at least that's how I read your post).
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, forgive me, it was psuedocode.
Basically, the answer is that Parent is not generic. Parent objects don't logically come in different flavors, and there is no reason beyond this problem that I would need to make Parent generic. It would also be an implementation nightmare at this stage, and would require making Grandparent and all the other classes that reference Parent objects generic as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Where does that generics-explosion come from? The type must be known somewhere..
Edit: also, a bit more context would probably help.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a base dll; different implementations will need to use the Child objects differently. Only the implementation will know the type. The Grandparent and all the other classes that ref parent objects have no reason to know the type; only Child and Parent's dictionary of Child need to know.
So there's no way to use a type object as a generic param?
The constructor for Parent is really the only appropriate place to do this. I'm not sure what context you're looking for, but I'm happy to provide answers...
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Burkindine wrote: So there's no way to use a type object as a generic param?
There is one way.. through reflection. I really wouldn't recommend that.
Is there a specific reason to avoid making Parent generic? Such as static fields that must be shared across all instances of parent, not just the ones with the same generic type..
This is what you want, right? Except in a way that actually works.
class Parent
{
Dictionary<string, Child<T>> _d;
public Parent(Type T)
{
_d = new Dictionary<string, Child<T>>();
}
}
It's really not much different from this:
class Parent<T>
{
Dictionary<string, Child<T>> _d;
public Parent()
{
_d = new Dictionary<string, Child<T>>();
}
}
ps: syntax colouring appears to be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
I am open to trying the reflection method, if you could possible provide an example...
The problem with making parent generic is that then all the other classes that ref parent objects in the library will need to know what type it is, which means making them all generic as well. Essentially, the entire library would have to be generic just so one class can be. Coding with the library would be a nightmare, since most of the other classes have nothing to do with child objects and there is no logical relationship between them.
It would be like having to instantiate CashRegister(of Cat) objects because your pet store program has a PetList type that needs the type param. The cash register doesn't need to know that; it should be able to work with the, say, count and price fields on the petlist object without needing to know the cat's hair color. If that makes sense. 
|
|
|
|
|
What if you give the Child<t> some interface to implement and make a dictionary of that instead? Or Object even. "the rest" can not use Child<t> anyway since it doesn't know T.
Pete Burkindine wrote: I am open to trying the reflection method, if you could possible provide an example...
Bad idea. Avoid reflection at (nearly) all costs.
warning: it's getting really late here, by now I'm probably not making any sense anymore
edit: 3565555 GET!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
