The VM of lars is 32 bits so I guess it scales. At least he told me 
that he thought of that.

Stef

On 11 févr. 04, at 01:52, smallsqueak.net wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> </SNIP>
>
>>
>> As for the sizes, my own motivations are still these:
>>
>> - Make the system start as quickly as possible, including initial 
>> system
>> download. My current desired upper bound for the download wait is
>> something like ten seconds on a typical broadband connection. Roughly,
>> that's 10 seconds at 1Mbit/sec, or 10Mbit, call it 1MB transfer size.
>>
>> - Get each of the VM and snapshot transfer sizes to be under 100KB, so
>> as to invoke the "under three digits" psychological effect. :)  I'm
>> currently at at a 91K snapshot and 99K VM. I'm not so concerned with 
>> the
>> runtime memory footprint, since my targets are all relatively 
>> cavernous
>> memory-wise (desktops, laptops, PDAs, phones).
>> The 1MB figure is probably a reasonable upper bound to assume.
>> My guess is that the lower bound for the functionality I want is a
>> 50K snapshot and 50K VM.
>>
>
>     This 50K/50K sounds good, but how well does it scale ?
>
>     Bear in mind that a full blown image, from an extensible
>     Squatty one, 50K  will become something like 10M ? ;-)
>
>> (Squat progress messages, including vague guesses
>> at release timing, at http://netjam.org/squat )
>>
>
>     I couldn't find any release timing there, can you post it here .
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     SmallSqueak.
>
>
>