>Hi Thomas and Jos,
>
>if you load 30 instances of VFP on an x86 server with 3 GB of ram, each one taking 100MB of memory, you will find all those instances running in the space below 2GB. VFP can not address memory above 2GB. Why? Here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wz223b1z(v=vs.80).aspx and here http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1658706617?page=6 (it's been a big thing in the gaming community). Given when VFP was written, this makes sense. It's not that it can't address _more_ than 2 GB of memory (although that's true also), but that it can't address _above_ the 2GB line. This is true for every x86-compiled program, except those that has the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set in the linker; or those who are capable, if the corresponding header flag (usually called the LARGEMEMORYAWARE flag by the gamers, but not by Microsoft) is set in the header of the EXE.
>
>I've tested on Windows 2008 R2 (which is always x64), where there is no /PAE flag because nearly all 4GB of the lower 4GB are automatically made available to x86 programs, using the modifed EXE, and, no joy, still crammed into 4GB. I left a note for Calvin on his blog, but he doesn't really answer those, and I've had no answer.
>
>Hank
>
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>Several days or even weeks ago I read a post here which I think was from Hank Fay. It mentioned something about the maximum amount of memory that all running instances of VFP could collectively have was the 2Gb limit. I understand that VFP cannot reach beyond 2Gb. But why would this affect separately running instances of VFP on a single machine? If they share the same DLLs then again I can understand it. But what if they all had their own copies of the VFP DLLs? Could someone expand on this?
>>
>>Pretty sure you misinterpreted his post.
>>It was about the possibility to patch vfp with the LARGEMEMORY[too lazy too Google] or something flag,
Look image.
>>which IN OTHER programs allows those to adress 3 insted of 2 GB RAM inside each W32 process.
>>So it is not collectively, but in each instance the maximum "program" footprint, as some memory is needed from the top as well,
>>hence the 1 GB even with LARGEMEMORY. There are some programs that look for the correct location in an exe and patch,
>>but if Hank says it doesn't work, I would first look at other alternatives. SSD can speed up previosly disc bound programs like crazy -
>>this is the direction I went 18 month ago. Depending on the task I got a speedup of 20 - 60%, elevating single core allocation from
>>30 ~50 to 90 ~ 95%. If you are running VM's on big RAM HW check out the different modes of using that RAM:
>>depending JUST on the configuration the speed can be different by a factor of 3 on the same HW.
>>
>>regards
>>
>>thomas

On my W7 x64 Ultimate with 12GB RAM i can run multiple 2GB VFP instances. Look image.