[Moose-dev] Re: Big models, memory and persistence

Hi stephan, thanks for your thoughts (further comments below) On 30/03/2017 13:31, Stephan Eggermont wrote: > Hi Cyrille, > Long time no see! > > On 30/03/17 10:07, Cyrille Delaunay wrote: >> With the current memory limit of Pharo >> and the size of the generated moose models being potentially huge, >> >> maybe some of you already though about (or even experimented) >> persistence >> solutions with query mechanisms that would instantiate famix objects >> only “on demand”, >> >> in order to only have part of a model in memory when working on a >> specific area. >> >> If so, I would be really interested to hear about (or play with) it :) > The current FAMIX based models are not suitable for large models. > The inheritance based modeling results in very large, nearly empty > objects. > > Moose models tend to be highly connected and tend to be used using badly > predictable access patterns. That makes "standard databases" a bad match, > especially if you cannot push querying to them. > > We are very close to having 64bit Moose everywhere, shifting the > problem from > size of the model directly to speed. "very close" seems a bit optimistic. For example, it will take some time for windows yet The problem is that Synectique is already having difficulties right now and is looking for shorter term solution(s) > As the VM uses only one native thread and > 8-thread machines are everywhere, the best speed-up should be expected > from > splitting the model over multiple pharo images, and possibly over > multiple machines. > interesting idea, I am having some difficult seeing how to split a model in several parts that would have to link somehow one to the other.

Do you have any further thoughts on this point? nicolas -- Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR) Project-Team RMod _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev