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
Mailto:nigel.pain@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Website: http:\www.scotland.gov.uk

> -----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.
>