Sign in to follow this  
knukles

Manual solution of OOM

Recommended Posts

FSX 32 bit application only sees 4GB of RAM. This program unlocks it, and simulator sees the full amount of RAM.
Your feedback is very important!

 

Called 4gb_putch, unfortunately I can't throw it here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

This isnt doing what you thing it is, it just marks the executable as largeaddressaware, which the executable already has set if you are running SP2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


This program unlocks it, and simulator sees the full amount of RAM.
Your feedback is very important!

 

No, it will do what MrRoper already said above, and that means 32bit application on 64bit OS will use 4GB instead of only 2GB. You don't need it with FSX and Windows 7 64bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX 32 bit application only sees 4GB of RAM. This program unlocks it, and simulator sees the full amount of RAM.

Your feedback is very important!

 

Called 4gb_putch, unfortunately I can't throw it here

Thanks for trying to help but believe me there is no technical way of making a 32-bit process use or see more than 4GiB RAM memory.

 

As the others said, SP2 makes this large address aware so up to 4GiB max.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


As the others said, SP2 makes this large address aware so up to 4GiB max.

 

As someone who works in IT as my day job, it kinda pains me to ask this, because I feel like I should have gotten some industry-wide memo or something, but what prompted the recent change to GiB, versus GB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


So, GB is actually slightly inaccurate.

 

Makes sense.  It's more of a mouthful to pronounce, and it's extra keys to type, so there's no way I'll use it, but it makes sense...haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense.  It's more of a mouthful to pronounce, and it's extra keys to type, so there's no way I'll use it, but it makes sense...haha.

 

 

Kyle,

 

pls. note that, when pronouncing GiB, your OOM will occur almost 300 MB later!!!   :LMAO:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyle,

 

pls. note that, when pronouncing GiB, your OOM will occur almost 300 MB later!!!   :LMAO:

 

haha - thanks for that. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who works in IT as my day job, it kinda pains me to ask this, because I feel like I should have gotten some industry-wide memo or something, but what prompted the recent change to GiB, versus GB?

 

Yip all correct, what olli and others said. Basically GB = 1000MB and GiB = 1024MB. So a damn 1TB Hard Drive is actually 931GiB, whereas if they advertised it as 1TiB it would actually show up correctly. (Theoretically, windows like to do funny business behind the scenes.

 

Just to make life interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but back in the real world everyone in computing was always well aware that the multiplier was 1024 not 1000. 1 GB of memory would make no logical sense as 1,000,000,000 bytes. It's really only hard disk manufacturers who like to use the SI meaning of the giga prefix to inflate their disk sizes for marketing reasons.

 

So in computing a GB always was a GiB in all but name.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Kevin, true... only marketing

 

The OP has made another fundamental error though, as the 4GiB/GB limit has nothing to do with RAM... Virtual address space, VAS, is the term of the minute, but we all know that... :)

 

A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a damn 1TB Hard Drive is actually 931GiB, whereas if they advertised it as 1TiB it would actually show up correctly.

But large drives are quoted as Tbytes so are correct

 

..but the manufacturers of computer storage devices usually use the term to mean 1 000 000 bytes.

 

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But large drives are quoted as Tbytes so are correct

I just looked on WD's site and they don't treat such large drives any different. They quote disk sizes in GB and TB. A Tbyte is a terabyte, surely.

 

They are strictly speaking correct but if you expect to get 1 TB (in the computing sense of 10244 bytes) you will feel cheated. You'll get around 1012 bytes, about 9% less. Windows keeps up the confusion by not following the same naming standard. For example my laptop HDD is 750 GB according to the manufacturer. Windows "My Computer" reports that as 698 GB (750,145,503,232 bytes). It's not surprising people feel cheated.

 

As a software engineer if I'm working on a computer I think of the units multiplier as being 1024, not 1000. I write and refer to a GB (gigabyte) but always mean a GiB (gibibyte). As an aero engineer I think in terms of the SI definitions. But there's never any confusion in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAS is just a fancy name for flat memory addressing. It doesn't change the 2^32 address space limit of 32-bit processes.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flat memory addressing  has nothing to do it's a 32 or 64 bit process - both are flat memory addressing.

 

 It's the Virtual Address Space (VAS)  that determines whether it's 32 or 64 bit .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"On 64-bit Microsoft Windows, processes running 32-bit executables that were linked with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE:YES option have access to 4 GiB of virtual address space; without that option they are limited to 2GB. By default, 64-bit processes have 8TB of user-mode virtual address space; (...)"

 

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_address_space

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

User-mode virtual address space for each 32-bit process is

  • Limit in on X86 determines if it's 2GB or up to 3GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE (set) and 4GT
  • Limit in 64-bit Windows and determines if it's 2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE cleared (default) or 4 GB with  set

So with 64 bit you can't set 3GB user-mode virtual address space.

 

Also, you can't set 8TB user-mode virtual address space with an 32 bit.

Edited by mgh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've still got it backwards. The number of bits determines the maximum addressable space. Not the other way around.

 

A 32 bit application running on a 64 bit OS is of course still limited to 32 bit addressing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by kevinh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAS size is determined by the the supported word length of the operating system.

 

a. A 32-bit process in a 32-bit Windows environment will be allocated a maximum of 2 GB of VAS, the rest being used by Windows. This can be increased to a maximum of 3 GB with the LAA flag. Not more.

 

b. A 32 bit-process in a 64-bit Windows environment will be allocated a maximum of 4 GB of VAS, minus the memory footprint of the operating system, unless there are more than 4 GB of physical memory installed.

 

c. Now a 64-bit process in a 64 bit Windows environment will be allocated up to 8 TB of VAS.

 

FSX falls into category b. and there is no way around this 4 GB limit.

Edited by MorsAbAlto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what already posted but for completion for user-mode virtual address space for each 64-bit process

  • Limit on 64-windows determines if it's x64 8TB (Intel Itanium-based systems 7TB, or Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 128TB) with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE set (default), or 2 GB with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE cleared

 

64 bit may still have only 2GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of really interesting stuff here everyone. Mgh, thanks for the summary. I think your posts should be highlighted as best answers here, so that people stopping by finally understand. No 32-bit application is ever going to see more than 4 GiB of VAS, regardless of it running on 64, 128, or even a 256-bit OS... Period.

 

 

 

 

Andrew Entwistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this