well a model is a big graph where all entities (transitively) relate to all other entities, so splitting the model over several pharo images implies having entities in one image referencing other entities in other images.
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:15 Nicolas Anquetil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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)
>> 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
> 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
> splitting the model over multiple pharo images, and possibly over
> multiple machines.
I am having some difficult seeing how to split a model in several parts
that would have to link somehow one to the other.
how do they link
Do you have any further thoughts on this point?
-- Nicolas Anquetil -- MCF (HDR) Project-Team RMod