lists@lowfrequency.or

I am trying to load a bunch of video clips into jit.qt.movie objects, 

more than 2GB worth. When I simply create enough jit.qt.movie 

objects (about 200 of them, at 320x240, inside a poly~) and cross 

this threshold of 2GB, max immediately crashes, or pauses for awhile 

unresponsively and then crashes. The same happens when I try to 

allocate jit.matrix objects of a total size that is greater than 2GB 

- say, a single [jit.matrix 4 char 320 240 2000] or 7 of [jit.matrix 

160 120 1000]. (Each [jit.matrix 320 240 1] is about 300K)

My question is, how come there is this limit when creating matrices 

but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file into ram? 

That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or RAM, for some 

reason...). If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is limited to 32 bits of 

address space? I'm probably missing something here.

I am trying to load a bunch of video clips into jit.qt.movie objects,  
more than 2GB worth.  When I simply create enough jit.qt.movie  
objects (about 200 of them, at 320x240, inside a poly~) and cross  
this threshold of 2GB, max immediately crashes, or pauses for awhile  
unresponsively and then crashes.  The same happens when I try to  
allocate jit.matrix objects of a total size that is greater than 2GB  
- say, a single [jit.matrix 4 char 320 240 2000] or 7 of [jit.matrix  
160 120 1000].  (Each [jit.matrix 320 240 1] is about 300K)

My question is, how come there is this limit when creating matrices  
but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file into ram?   
That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or RAM, for some  
reason...).  If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is limited to 32 bits of  
address space?  I'm probably missing something here.

loading-more-than-2gb-of-matrixes

On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:19 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

> My question is, how come there is this limit when creating matrices 

> but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file into ram? 

> That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or RAM, for some 

> reason...). If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is limited to 32 bits 

> of address space? I'm probably missing something here.

Like many applications, Max is currently only a 32 bit application. 

You will need to figure out a strategy for using the disk to your 

If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also 

not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via read, 

it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy you are 

> My question is, how come there is this limit when creating matrices  
> but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file into ram?   
> That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or RAM, for some  
> reason...).  If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is limited to 32 bits  
> of address space?  I'm probably missing something here.

Like many applications, Max is currently only a 32 bit application.  
You will need to figure out a strategy for using the disk to your  
advantage.

If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also  
not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via read,  
it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy you are  
seeing.

On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:

> On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:19 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

>> My question is, how come there is this limit when creating 

>> matrices but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file 

>> into ram? That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or 

>> RAM, for some reason...). If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is 

>> limited to 32 bits of address space? I'm probably missing 

> Like many applications, Max is currently only a 32 bit application. 

> You will need to figure out a strategy for using the disk to your 

> If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also 

> not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via read, 

> it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy you are 

Using Activity monitor, I load a ~5GB Quicktime file and don't see a 

huge increase in RAM. After next sending it a "loadram" message I 

see RAM usage jump to ~16GB (on a 16GB RAM, Quad-processor Intel 

Mac), and movie plays very well. Unless there is something odd with 

Activity Monitor, or that I missing something important, doesn't this 

mean that entire 5GB of the movie is now in RAM?

>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 10:19 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:
>
>> My question is, how come there is this limit when creating  
>> matrices but not when loading a gigantic jit.qt.movie-read file  
>> into ram?  That way, I can load 5GB of movie data (into 16GB or  
>> RAM, for some reason...).  If OS X is 64-bit, ow come Max is  
>> limited to 32 bits of address space?  I'm probably missing  
>> something here.
>
> Like many applications, Max is currently only a 32 bit application.  
> You will need to figure out a strategy for using the disk to your  
> advantage.

> If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also  
> not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via read,  
> it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy you are  
> seeing.

Using Activity monitor, I load a ~5GB Quicktime file and don't see a  
huge increase in RAM.  After next sending it a "loadram" message I  
see RAM usage jump to ~16GB (on a 16GB RAM, Quad-processor Intel  
Mac), and movie plays very well.  Unless there is something odd with  
Activity Monitor, or that I missing something important, doesn't this  
mean that entire 5GB of the movie is now in RAM?

On Sep 4, 2007, at 1:19 PM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

>> If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also 

>> not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via 

>> read, it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy 

> Using Activity monitor, I load a ~5GB Quicktime file and don't see 

> a huge increase in RAM. After next sending it a "loadram" message 

> I see RAM usage jump to ~16GB (on a 16GB RAM, Quad-processor Intel 

> Mac), and movie plays very well. Unless there is something odd 

> with Activity Monitor, or that I missing something important, 

> doesn't this mean that entire 5GB of the movie is now in RAM?

Perhaps QT now has some ability to load into the RAM of another 

process, or on the fly RAM disk, or some other trickiness that I was 

unaware of. You might also be able to use a RAM disk to your 

advantage for read/writing matrices faster than to/from disk.

>> If you are trying a *loadram* message to jit.qt.movie it will also  
>> not load the RAM, if not crash. When you just open a file via  
>> read, it is not loaded into RAM. Perhaps this is the discrepancy  
>> you are seeing.
>
> Using Activity monitor, I load a ~5GB Quicktime file and don't see  
> a huge increase in RAM.  After next sending it a "loadram" message  
> I see RAM usage jump to ~16GB (on a 16GB RAM, Quad-processor Intel  
> Mac), and movie plays very well.  Unless there is something odd  
> with Activity Monitor, or that I missing something important,  
> doesn't this mean that entire 5GB of the movie is now in RAM?

Perhaps QT now has some ability to load into the RAM of another  
process, or on the fly RAM disk, or some other trickiness that I was  
unaware of. You might also be able to use a RAM disk to your  
advantage for read/writing matrices faster than to/from disk.

I had problems with the 2gb limit too. Took me quite some time to figure out what caused the crash. Would it be an idea to generate an alert if the 2gb limit is reached?

loading more than 2GB of matrixes?