[Beowulf] g77 limits...

Joe Landman landman at scalableinformatics.com
Wed Feb 22 22:27:52 EST 2006


Hi Robert:

Robert G. Brown wrote:
> Dear List,
> 
> What are the current limits on the size of arrays that can be allocated
> in g77?  I know that this is almost a FAQ, but I cannot look back at the
> archives because it is so time dependent an answer.  In particular, can
> an x64 box with a modern linux kernel and a modern g77 allocate 4-8 GB
> arrays (presuming, of course, that one uses a long int for an index)?  I
> have seen references to "using an offset" in a few google hits (that
> were not very informative) -- does that basically mean doing pointer
> arithmetic in fortran?

Hmmmm.... If you use a staticly allocated array, you need to do some 
bits with ulimit/limit in the shell to make sure you can allocate enough 
space on the stack (which is probably not a good idea).

If you instead use gfortran/g95 you can use the fortran allocation bits 
(roughly analogous to calloc/malloc).  Worst case, you can string 
together an interface to calloc/malloc, though I would advise against 
that unless everyone is using the same platform.

> I ask because:
> 
>   a) I'm not a fortran expert -- in fact the last time I >>willingly<<
> coded in fortran was twenty or so years ago.

Its not *so* bad ... the language is only 51+ years old ... :)

Actually, modern fortran is pretty nice.  Show me a CS student who 
doesn't turn green with revulsion over it, and I will be happy, but it 
is a fairly reasonable language.

> 
>   b) Alas, I'm probably going to have to become one (again).

Heh... people complained that I wrote my Perl, C, and even Assembler in 
Fortran for a while.  Now they complain that I write it all in C.  Its 
not so hard to switch back and forth.  The hard part is the IO.  Format 
statements are annoying.

>   c) Working on some problems with potentially very large memory
> allocations.

Shouldn't be too hard using g95/gfortran.  Can you look at out of core 
type solutions (blocked access).

>   d) Where commercial compilers aren't a viable option (although I
> suggested them) -- the software has to build and be usable by e.g.
> researchers in countries where there simply is no money to spend on
> compilers.

Actually the code, if written to spec should be trivially portable 
between the compilers, modulo some limits and vagaries of each compiler.

> 
> The last suggests that it would be ideal if large arrays were at least
> approximately "transparent" -- so that the software would build on 32
> bit systems and be runnable there with smaller arrays but would also
> build and run on x64 big-memory systems without the need for extensive
> instrumentation of the code.

If you want to do this, you might look at the out of core methods.  This 
might not be realistic, depends upon your analysis.

> 
>    Thanks,
> 
>        rgb
> 
> (I know Toone works on this and am hoping he's paying attention so I can
> get a really authoritative and informative answer...:-)
> 

-- 
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics LLC,
email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
web  : http://www.scalableinformatics.com
phone: +1 734 786 8423
fax  : +1 734 786 8452
cell : +1 734 612 4615
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf



More information about the Beowulf mailing list