Yes sorry about that, i started to use the stable version.... you know because I thought stable is better and that is the case in most programs. But I am using .15 as .16 came out just today and my assembly is running for 3 days now.
I did not know that about swap, I thought 48 GB is more than enough as just RAM. How much SWAP is enough for 48 GB?
Now things make a lot more sense to me about the kills. I guess a combination of more SWAP and nohup could help prevent MIRA from shutting down.
Thanks for clarifying the kmpf. Adrian On 5/15/2011 4:00 PM, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
On Sunday 15 May 2011 21:42:30 Adrian Pelin wrote: > But if kpmf is set at 20 (and the default is 15), why does this still > happen?kpmf is a wish. Citing the docs: "it *tries* to keep x percent of the memory free."And because sometimes the estimates MIRA makes in earlier passes are slightly off for later passes, this leads to increased memory needs where the memory allocator is unable to keep memory needs within the allocated space and then has to grow higher than "wished for".Combine this with a bug of the 3.2.0 and 3.2.1 versions ... and memory sometimes exploded. That bug was fixed in 3.2.1.9, leading to much less situations with drastic memory increases.> Indeed the swap space was only 1 GB last time, now I increased it > to 49 GB and the RAM itself is 48 GB.I'll never stop to wonder why people set up machines without adequate swap ... 1 GB swap for a 48 GB machine really is not enough :-)> I am doing a hybrid assembly with > high coverages so it is to be expected that the program requires lots of > memory.You did not write which version of MIRA you are using, but may I whole-heartedly recommend to use one of the latest MIRA development versions? They have some really intersting improvements especially for situations you describe. Version 3.2.1.16 is fresh on SourceForge.B.
