docbug vim 7.2.108 (on suse 11.1)

[Linda W-4]

Under maxmem, it says:

'maxmemtot' 'mmt'       number  (default between 2048 and 10240 (system
                                 dependent) or half the amount of memory
                                 available)
                        global
                        {not in Vi}
        Maximum amount of memory (in Kbyte) to use for all buffers together.
        Maximum value 2000000.  Use this to work without a limit.  Also see
        'maxmem'.
----
 1 minor unclarity:

1) 2048-10240 Bytes is awfully small for today's systems...should this
    number be said to be in 'KB'?  Maybe it should start defaulting to 'MB'
    (with appropriate default changes -- or allow 'units' to be specified?
    like MB/mb or tb/TB?

2) One minor (outdated) statement: "Maximum value=2000000" -- that doesn't
    apply to 64 bit machines.  I'm logged in remotely to a linux box running
    gvim and 'maxmem' shows about 3x that amount.


Subnote:

    Is this the correct place to report bugs, or is there a bug database
I should file things in?  

tnx,
-l


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Ken Bloom-2]

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:32:57 -0700, Linda W wrote:

> Under maxmem, it says:
>
> 'maxmemtot' 'mmt'       number  (default between 2048 and 10240 (system
>                                  dependent) or half the amount of memory
>                                  available)
>                         global
>                         {not in Vi}
>         Maximum amount of memory (in Kbyte) to use for all buffers
>         together. Maximum value 2000000.  Use this to work without a
>         limit.  Also see 'maxmem'.
> ----
>  1 minor unclarity:
>
> 1) 2048-10240 Bytes is awfully small for today's systems...should this
>     number be said to be in 'KB'?  Maybe it should start defaulting to
>     'MB' (with appropriate default changes -- or allow 'units' to be
>     specified? like MB/mb or tb/TB?

It is in KB. Just look at the first line of the synopsis. So the defaults
mentioned are 2 megabytes and 10 megabytes respectively.

Though I notice that my default is outside this range: namely when I
start a new GVIM instance on Debian AMD64 (with 4 GB of RAM installed,
and 332MB of that used), maxmemtot=1966108. Does this mean it defaults to
2048-10240 kbytes if that default is larger than half the amount of memory
available? A cleanup to the docs would be useful, but the default numbers
aren't ridiculous.

> 2) One minor (outdated) statement: "Maximum value=2000000" -- that
> doesn't
>     apply to 64 bit machines.  I'm logged in remotely to a linux box
>     running gvim and 'maxmem' shows about 3x that amount.



--
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Bram Moolenaar]

Linda W wrote:

> Under maxmem, it says:
>
> 'maxmemtot' 'mmt'       number  (default between 2048 and 10240 (system
>                                  dependent) or half the amount of memory
>                                  available)
>                         global
>                         {not in Vi}
>         Maximum amount of memory (in Kbyte) to use for all buffers together.
>         Maximum value 2000000.  Use this to work without a limit.  Also see
>         'maxmem'.
> ----
>  1 minor unclarity:
>
> 1) 2048-10240 Bytes is awfully small for today's systems...should this
>     number be said to be in 'KB'?  Maybe it should start defaulting to 'MB'
>     (with appropriate default changes -- or allow 'units' to be specified?
>     like MB/mb or tb/TB?

The value mentioned is the value of the option.  And that means it's
counted in Kbyte.

I like to keep things simple.  Changing the option from number to string
is not simple.

> 2) One minor (outdated) statement: "Maximum value=2000000" -- that doesn't
>     apply to 64 bit machines.  I'm logged in remotely to a linux box running
>     gvim and 'maxmem' shows about 3x that amount.

Apparently that's possible these days.  I'll change it to:

        Maximum amount of memory in Kbyte to use for all buffers together.
        The maximum usable value is about 2000000 (2 Gbyte).  Use this to work
        without a limit.  On 64 bit machines higher values might work.  But
        hey, do you really need more than 2 Gbyte for text editing?
        Also see 'maxmem'.


> Subnote:
>
>     Is this the correct place to report bugs, or is there a bug database
> I should file things in?  

You can put bugs in a database, but nothing happens after that :-).

--
GUARD #2:  It could be carried by an African swallow!
GUARD #1:  Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow,
           that's my point.
GUARD #2:  Oh, yeah, I agree with that...
                                  The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python)

 /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net   \\\
///        sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\        download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org        ///
 \\\            help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org    ///

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tony Mechelynck-2]

On 12/10/09 00:32, Linda W wrote:

>
> Under maxmem, it says:
>
> 'maxmemtot' 'mmt'       number  (default between 2048 and 10240 (system
>                                   dependent) or half the amount of memory
>                                   available)
>                          global
>                          {not in Vi}
>          Maximum amount of memory (in Kbyte) to use for all buffers together.
>          Maximum value 2000000.  Use this to work without a limit.  Also see
>          'maxmem'.
> ----
>   1 minor unclarity:
>
> 1) 2048-10240 Bytes is awfully small for today's systems...should this
>      number be said to be in 'KB'?  Maybe it should start defaulting to 'MB'
>      (with appropriate default changes -- or allow 'units' to be specified?
>      like MB/mb or tb/TB?
>
> 2) One minor (outdated) statement: "Maximum value=2000000" -- that doesn't
>      apply to 64 bit machines.  I'm logged in remotely to a linux box running
>      gvim and 'maxmem' shows about 3x that amount.
>
>
> Subnote:
>
>      Is this the correct place to report bugs, or is there a bug database
> I should file things in?
>
> tnx,
> -l

The actual default is *either* a system-dependent setting between 2048
(2Mbyte) and 10240 (10 Mbyte), *or* half what is available, *whichever
is larger*, up to 2 million or so (2GB) on 32-bit machines, possibly
even more'n that on 64-bit machines. My floortop computer has a 32-bit
CPU, 2 gig of memory, and gvim starts up with &mm == &mmt == 1010360 by
default. I don't feel any need to make it bigger. As Bram said, hey, do
you really need more than 2 gig for *a single instance of a single
plaintext editor* ?

I _have_ heard of files even huger than that, but in that case I suppose
they could be "cut out to small enough chunks" by some stream-editor
beforehand, and, if necessary, reassembled by cat (or similar)
afterwards. Doing search operations in a very large file becomes
measurably slow anyway. My largest editfile is a 33 megabyte *.txt (a
couple of orders of magnitude below that maximum), and I have time to
drink a (Moroccan-size) glass of tea between starting a relatively
simple search and finding the match.


Best regards,
Tony.
--
God is real, unless declared integer.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tim Chase-9]

> My largest editfile is a 33 megabyte *.txt (a couple of orders
> of magnitude below that maximum), and I have time to drink a
> (Moroccan-size) glass of tea between starting a relatively
> simple search and finding the match.

I've foolishly opened a 700+ meg tab-delimited call-detail text
file (on multiple occasions...does folly never learn?) on an XP
machine with 2GB of memory and any operation (even with
LargeFile.vim-like settings) -- even searching, as Tony notes
--was painfully slow.

-tim



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[John Little-4]

On Nov 11, 10:35 pm, Tony Mechelynck <antoine.mechely...@...>
wrote:
...
> I _have_ heard of files even huger than that...

Vim, with syntax colouring, is great for viewing server log files,
which can in reasonable circumstances (f. ex. log level turned right
up in desperation) be gigabytes in size.  Of course, vim struggles a
bit, but I say it's a quite valid use case.

I was called into a project 15 or so years ago where the only data
manipulation tool was dump to flat file, edit with vi, and reload.
One file I had to manipulate dumped to 100 MB.

Many are the ways vim is used, beyond any one person's imagination I
suspect.

Regards, John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---