Total maximal size of data

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Am 25.01.10 21:49, schrieb AlexM:
> On Jan 25, 2:37 pm, "Alf P. Steinbach"<al... at start.no>  wrote:
>> * AlexM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2:07 pm, Terry Reedy<tjre... at udel.edu>  wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/2010 2:05 PM, Alexander Moibenko wrote:
>>
>>>>> I have a simple question to which I could not find an answer.
>>>> Because it has no finite answer
>>
>>>>> What is the total maximal size of list including size of its elements?
>>>> In theory, unbounded. In practice, limited by the memory of the interpreter.
>>
>>>> The maximum # of elements depends on the interpreter. Each element can
>>>> be a list whose maximum # of elements ..... and recursively so on...
>>
>>>> Terry Jan Reedy
>>
>>> I am not asking about maximum numbers of elements I am asking about
>>> total maximal size of list including size of its elements. In other
>>> words:
>>> if size of each list element is ELEMENT_SIZE and all elements have the
>>> same size what would be the maximal number of these elements in 32 -
>>> bit architecture?
>>> I see 3 GB, and wonder why? Why not 2 GB or not 4 GB?
>>
>> At a guess you were running this in 32-bit Windows. By default it reserves the
>> upper two gig of address space for mapping system DLLs. It can be configured to
>> use just 1 gig for that, and it seems like your system is, or you're using some
>> other system with that kind of behavior, or, it's just arbitrary...
>>
>> Cheers&  hth.,
>>
>> - Alf (by what mechanism do socks disappear from the washer?)
>
> No, it is 32-bit Linux.
> Alex

I already answered that (as did Alf, the principle applies for both OSs) 
- kernel memory space is mapped into the address-space, reducing it by 1 
or 2 GB.

Diez