LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (March 2001, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Mon, 5 Mar 2001 17:40:27 -0000
Reply-To:     Nigel.Pain@SCOTLAND.GSI.GOV.UK
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Nigel Pain <Nigel.Pain@SCOTLAND.GSI.GOV.UK>
Subject:      Re: Can a SAS Dataset larger than 2 GB ?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The UK billion should indeed be 1 million million, which seems to make sense to me (it is a bi-million). However, as with many things (eg. pronunciation of research, emphasis is on the second syllable in UK English), US cultural imperialism [:-)] means that we find it being used to mean 1 thousand million more and more.

*************************************************** Nigel Pain Scottish Executive Development Department Business Support Unit Victoria Quay EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ UK Tel +44 131 244 7237 Fax +44 131 244 7281 Website: http:\

> -----Original Message----- > From: Walter Scott [mailto:wscott@MAIL.STATE.TN.US] > Sent: 05 March 2001 16:58 > Subject: Re: Can a SAS Dataset larger than 2 GB ? > > > Sigurd, > The US billion is a thousand million. If memory serves > me correctly, a UK billion is a million million. I believe > both countries go up in steps of a thousand from there; thus, > for number greater than or equal to a billion, the UK name is > always 10**3 larger than than the same US name. ((Somebody > please double-check me on that. It's Monday morning after all)). > Don't Canada and the rest of Europe use the "UK" > convention in this regard?? > > Walter > > >>> Sigurd Hermansen <HERMANS1@WESTAT.COM> 10:33:26 05-Mar-01 >>> > <<Note for FJK: please hold for Friday>> > > <<snip>> > > Hope this clarifies the issue of file size limitations. Now, > while we are > again on the subject of ridiculously large numbers, is the US > trillion the > same as the UK billion? And where does the 16 come from? Is > that to allow > backward compatibility for Intel 286/386 machines with > trillion GB disks? > > Signed, > WW Beergiver/SWH > > -----Original Message----- > From: Darryl Putnam [mailto:dputnam@MERKLENET.COM] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:24 AM > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Can a SAS Dataset larger than 2 GB ? > > > In windows 95/98 there is the 2GB file size limitation. In > Windows NT/2000 > in all practicality there is no limitation. It is around > 16Trillion GB > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerhard Hellriegel [mailto:ghellrieg@T-ONLINE.DE] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:40 AM > To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU > Subject: Re: Can a SAS Dataset larger than 2 GB ? > > > On Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:45:09 +0700, Nat <nat_blue@YAHOO.COM> wrote: > > >I read from SAS V6 's help that it cannot. (For windows 95 or 98) > >But how about SAS V7 or V8 ? > > > >Thanks. > >Nat > > are you sure, that this is not a limitation of the operating > system? In > this case, SAS V8 cannot also. However I remember something > for HPUX, where > a similar limitation was and there was a experimental way in SAS to > circumvent the limit with a kind of multi-libs (more than one > dataset which > occures like one library). If you mean a external dataset, > just read in / > write out multiple. > For the multi-file libraries maybe you should contact the > tech support or > refer to the SAS WWW-site for documents. Look for "GB > limitation" or "multi- > file", ... Maybe there is something like that also for Win-versions. >

Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page