Hi Thomas,

this was on a server set with the /3GB switch in x86; and also on a Win 2003 x64 server, where this is no switch needed. But as I mentioned in my parallel post, using plain VFP gave different results, so I'm going to have to visit this again on the x64 server I used for this testing, using the real (large) exe, and see if I just mis-read the numbers.

I wasn't confusing virtual with physical memory, fwiw. We have a new Win2K8 server in our hosting farm. When users are out of it, tonight, I'll load it up with instances of the real application and see what happens to physical memory.

Hank

>Hank,
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>In XP AFAIR you must explicitly set a /3GB in boot.ini, but I have not tested there, stepped over Vista and did not look at Win7.
>Perhaps I should play with that some time, but who to blame for spurios errors if any crop up <g>
>Where did you expect the programs to reside if not in the lower 4GB of the 32Bit server ?
>
>update:
>did not see any such comment in his:
>Out of memory? Easy ways to increase the memory available to your program
>
>regards
>
>thomas