Greetings,
I was wondering if there was any downside to increasing the size of the client -D parameter? Maybe more (measurable?) memory consumption or some other overhead?
Also, I doubt it, but is there any way to have the soft limit warnings when it's being automatically increased directed away from standard output?
Thanks.
> if there was any downside to increasing the size of the client -D parameter?
Large -D value will provoke the r-code swap. Session writes to a (rcd*) temp file all r-codes in the -D directory that are not fitted into the -mmax memory.
The only downside I can see is increased initial memory consumption, but if you're hitting the limit regularly I don't see any reason not to increase -D to the point where you no longer hit the limit.
I don't think there's a way to redirect warnings but in 11.0 and up you can suppress individual warnings.
SESSION:SUPPRESS-WARNINGS-LIST = "5410".
> if there was any downside to increasing the size of the client -D parameter?
Large -D value will provoke the r-code swap. Session writes to a (rcd*) temp file all r-codes in the -D directory that are not fitted into the -mmax memory.
> On May 4, 2018, at 5:07 AM, George Potemkin wrote:
>
> Large -D value will provoke the r-code swap. Session writes to a (rcd*) temp file all r-codes in the -D directory that are not fitted into the -mmax memory.
That could be ameliorated by using a memory-mapped procedure library.