The point the article makes is that a 32GB file can be mmapped even if you only have 8GB of memory available - it wasn't talking about the address space. So the response is irrelevant even if technically correct
> What they said is correct regardless of that though?
I don't think so.
Their post is basically:
>> It still works if the file doesn't fit in RAM
> No it doesn't.
Which is incorrect: it actually does work for files that don't fit in RAM. It doesn't work only for files that don't fit in the address space, which is not what the author claimed.
I'm pretty sure the parent post to mine was updated from "RAM" to "address space", although I'm not 100% sure.
The point the article makes is that a 32GB file can be mmapped even if you only have 8GB of memory available - it wasn't talking about the address space. So the response is irrelevant even if technically correct
> What they said is correct regardless of that though?
I don't think so.
Their post is basically:
>> It still works if the file doesn't fit in RAM
> No it doesn't.
Which is incorrect: it actually does work for files that don't fit in RAM. It doesn't work only for files that don't fit in the address space, which is not what the author claimed.