Max performace settings (swap/cache) with 256/512 mb ram?

You need to read up and learn about VM systems in general.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Buffalo wrote:

With your limited knowledge, you shouldn't be in charge of
the project you are doong.

Everything I've read points to one thing:

Real memory + Virtual memory = total available memory (TAM).

None of the documents that have been posted so far have said that TAM
ever needs to be more than a few hundred mb.

If TAM = 512 mb, and if Real Memory = 512 mb, then Virtual Memory = 0.

I'll run some Sandra tests with and without virtual memory turned on
and see if it makes a difference.

But I think many of you out there are just plain in the habbit of
keeping virtual memory turned because "it's always been that way". If
you've got 128mb ram, yea, ok, you probably need virtual memory turned
on. But if you've got 256? 512? no way. Win-98 is hardly ever,
perhaps never used as a server. So you can't tell me it's memory
needs are significant once you've given it 256 mb of real RAM.

Don't come back and cry, if you get 'burned' real bad.

And just how would I get "burned real bad" if I run a pc with Virtual
memory turned off?

Don't load a heap of FUD on me. Give me information - not FUD.

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Bert Kinney wrote:

Hi 98 Guy,

Ron Martell MS-MVP has an article that will answer most of
you questions concerning memory management.
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/tips.htm#virtual

Quoting from that article:

"While the "total system load" is a realistic measure of total system
memory requirements it is often not practicable or even advisable to
have that much physical RAM installed in the computer"

I don't know when that article was written, but clearly it IS
practical these days to have a Win-98 machine with 256 or 512 mb of
ram, so he is wrong about that. As for the "advisable" part, he gives
no reason why having "that much" ram is not advised.

The premise of the article is based on the idea that there can never
be as much physical memory as the OS needs given the sum of the "total
system load". This premise is clearly no longer valid.

Not so. It would be easy to have the total address space for all tasks in
the system to exceed to physical ram.


While the article claims that Windows 98 with 1 and 1.5 gb of ram is
possible (with the appropriate settings), it does not explain the need
to still have a swap file or virtual memory in that case.

So - can you tell Win-98 not to use a swap file and not to create
virtual memory?

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Buffalo wrote:

1) In your System.ini file put in MaxFileCache= 70% of physical
ram under the [vcache] header.
ie: 256MB x 70% = 179200 so MaxFileCache=179200
ie: 512MB x 70% = 469763 so MaxFileCache=469763

Vcache - this is a hard drive virtual cache - right?

Which means data that is written to or read from the drive is cached
transiently by Vcache.

Tell me - is the single largest cache-able item the swap file?

If you were limited to caching only 1 item - would the swap file be
it?

What is the purpose of the swap file anyways? Is the swap file the
place where virtual memory is stored?

If so, then if I have 512 mb of ram, why on earth do I STILL want
virtual memory? Don't I have enough freeking REAL memory?

And if I DON'T need or want virtual memory, then I don't have so much
hammering of the Vcache because (presumably) there is NO swap file
(?!).

Again, back in the "old days" when I might have had a PC with 32 mb of
ram (maybe 4 of that used by vcache?) and maybe 128 mb virtual memory
(all of which is stored _AS_ the swap file - yes?) then, what - I
theoretically have a PC with 32+128=160 mb of memory?

So now if I have 512 mb of REAL memory, then why on earth do I still
need virtual memory (and the swap file that goes with it) ???

Wouldn't win-98 run faster if it didn't have to manage virtual memory
and the swap file???

The other items you mentioned are not even modified unless you
run pure DOS games or pure DOS programs.
Windows98 does not need an AutoExec.bat or Config.sys file to
run Windows.

But doesn't win-98 still load (or need) himem.sys even if you don't
have an actual config.sys?

Taken care of automatically.


What about emm386?

Same.


My current emm386 line is:

DEVICE=C:\WIN98\EMM386.exe NOEMS D=64 A=15 VERBOSE

Not needed.


Are you saying that EMM386 is irrelavent to the operation of Windows
98, regardless of the command-line options used?

Windows will make expanded memory available automatically if a program needs
it.


PS:

What about the use of WinAlign to "align" all executable code
(microsoft and non-microsoft) that can be aligned safely as a way to
increase performance? I don't hear too much about that. Is there a
master list of third-party software that has been shown to be
"align-able"?

By all means go ahead and disable virtual memory. However, I can assure you
that it will turn around and bite you one day, and with multiple machines it
will be sooner rather than later.

But I'll ask it again - if you are so certain that the swap file will never
get used, then what additional benefit are you going to get by disabling it?

I don't think you have accessed the information sites you have been referred
to. The required adjustment for the maximum vcache setting occurs at a point
where Windows is very unlikely to ever use the permitted maximum amount of
RAM. Therefore, the setting has no effect - Windows is not being limited in
any way. However, when you start talking 64Mb or 128Mb you are well into the
region where it will have an effect. You will be preventing Windows from
using the RAM that is installed. If you are going to restrict cache in this
way then you may as well remove the extra RAM and sell it for all the good
it will be doing you.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Jeff Richards wrote:

A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more
years old, so it is often not practical to have that much RAM.

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

So based on everything I've read so far, a machine with 512 mb (or
more) of real, honest to goodness RAM will never realistically need to
use virtual memory so it will get turned off.

What's a good setting for vcache? 64 mb? 128?

Answers inline:


"98 Guy" wrote
Jeff Richards wrote:

A machine that is running Widows 98 is often at least 4 or more
years old, so it is often not practical to have that much RAM.

I'm replacing about 1/2 dozen office PC's (each being a P-3, 600 to
850 mhz, 128 mb ram each) to 2.6 ghz Celeron's with 512 mb ram, DVD-rw
(LG 8x) and CD-rw drives, 80 gb Seagate Barracuda drives (very quite),
Zalman copper CPU heatsink AND zalman 400 watt power supply. Very
fast, very quite machines.

They're getting Win 98 (1 master drive is being cloned with Ghost).
Full install of Microsoft office 2000 premium, and all sorts of other
goodies from the MSDN (map point, etc). DVD burning / copying
software (DVD decrypt, DVD shrink, etc).

So based on everything I've read so far, a machine with 512 mb (or
more) of real, honest to goodness RAM will never realistically need to
use virtual memory so it will get turned off.

Obviously you have not "read everything" presented to you here. Installing
512mb's of memory will turn off nothing. If an "out of memory" error message
is produced, after installing 512mb's of RAM of more, limiting vcache will
be
necessary as suggested in the article below.
"Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts of RAM Installed:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/
..
--
Regards,
Bert Kinney [MS-MVP DTS]
http://dts-l.org/
How to Configure Outlook Express for Internet News:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=171164



What's a good setting for vcache? 64 mb? 128?

There is none. Let Windows manage it.


--
Regards,
Bert Kinney [MS-MVP DTS]
http://dts-l.org/
How to Configure Outlook Express for Internet News:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=171164

"Ron Martell" wrote in message
...
Shep© wrote:


Click here,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/easy.html

HTH

This sentence from this page is pure hokum:

Agreed.

"Also if you have around 128 meg or more of RAM then enable the
"Conservative Swap File"option in Cacheman to force windows to use all
your RAM before swapping out."

Windows will always repeat always use RAM before writing to the swap
file.

What that "conservative swap file usage" option does is to basically
set Windows 98 memory management back to the less efficient Windows 95
memory management. Specifically what it does is to eliminate the
pre-emptive writing of active memory content to the swap file.

What Windows 98 does, during periods when the system is basically
idle, is to scan the memory content and determine which items it would
choose to move from RAM to the swap file should it be necessary to do
so. It will then write those items to the swap file, but will also
still leave them in RAM. Then if subsequently there is an actual
need to move items to the swap file it can check those items that were
pre-emptively written to the swap file and if they are still eligible
to be moved they can be instantaneously dropped from RAM and their
location remapped to the already existing content in the swap file.
This can be a distinct performance advantage.

Indeed. In fact, the "conservative swapfile usage" option exists for one purpose: to
determine your actual swapfile usage (without pre-emptive swaps). It's the only way to
accurately determine how much more RAM you need to add in order to minimise swapfile
usage under normal usage. And since pre-emptive swapping only occurs during idle time,
there are no performance penalties involved -- only gains.

98 Guy wrote:

Buffalo wrote:

1) In your System.ini file put in MaxFileCache= 70% of physical
ram under the [vcache] header.
ie: 256MB x 70% = 179200 so MaxFileCache=179200
ie: 512MB x 70% = 469763 so MaxFileCache=469763

Vcache - this is a hard drive virtual cache - right?

Right. The 32 bit Windows equivalent of Smartdrive for DOS & Windows
3.x



Which means data that is written to or read from the drive is cached
transiently by Vcache.

Right.


Tell me - is the single largest cache-able item the swap file?

No. The swap file is not cached


If you were limited to caching only 1 item - would the swap file be
it?

No.


What is the purpose of the swap file anyways? Is the swap file the
place where virtual memory is stored?


The swap file (or virtual memory paging file as it is called in
Windows NT/2000/XP) is used to compensate for the lack of sufficient
physical RAM in your computer to meet the total memory load
requirements being placed on the machine.


If so, then if I have 512 mb of ram, why on earth do I STILL want
virtual memory? Don't I have enough freeking REAL memory?

Maybe. Maybe not.



And if I DON'T need or want virtual memory, then I don't have so much
hammering of the Vcache because (presumably) there is NO swap file
(?!).

No. You are confused.



Again, back in the "old days" when I might have had a PC with 32 mb of
ram (maybe 4 of that used by vcache?) and maybe 128 mb virtual memory
(all of which is stored _AS_ the swap file - yes?) then, what - I
theoretically have a PC with 32+128=160 mb of memory?

Yes


So now if I have 512 mb of REAL memory, then why on earth do I still
need virtual memory (and the swap file that goes with it) ???


Yes


Wouldn't win-98 run faster if it didn't have to manage virtual memory
and the swap file???


No. It will run slower, and possibly crash.

The other items you mentioned are not even modified unless you
run pure DOS games or pure DOS programs.
Windows98 does not need an AutoExec.bat or Config.sys file to
run Windows.

But doesn't win-98 still load (or need) himem.sys even if you don't
have an actual config.sys?


Yes. Loaded early in the boot. Unloaded when it switches to 32 bit
mode later in the boot process.

What about emm386?

Not needed unless you run DOS items that require a "restart in MS-DOS
mode". The 32 bit Windows Memory Manager will provided expanded
memory emulation to any DOS or 16 bit apps running under Windows that
require expanded memory.


My current emm386 line is:

DEVICE=C:\WIN98\EMM386.exe NOEMS D=64 A=15 VERBOSE

Not needed except as provided above.


Are you saying that EMM386 is irrelavent to the operation of Windows
98, regardless of the command-line options used?


Basically yes, except as provided above.


PS:

What about the use of WinAlign to "align" all executable code
(microsoft and non-microsoft) that can be aligned safely as a way to
increase performance? I don't hear too much about that. Is there a
master list of third-party software that has been shown to be
"align-able"?

Aligned code can be handled by the MapCache function in Windows 98,
which allows that code to be executed directly from the disk cache RAM
(vcache) effectively making that RAM perform double duty, as both disk
cache and program execution.

A couple of other points that might be of some interest:

1. Windows components, application programs, and device drivers all
tend to ask for memory allocations that are larger than what they
normally need. By design, Windows must provide memory address space
to satisfy all of the these requests, even the unused portions. What
normally happens is that Windows provides addresses in RAM only for
those portions that are actually used and allocates addresses in the
swap file to the unused portions. If subsequently some of the
previously unused RAM is required then it can be remapped to available
locations in RAM. Note that this mapping of the unused but requested
memory to the swap file does not require any disk activity - just an
entry in the memory mapping tables maintained by the CPU.

You can see this illustrated on a Windows 98 system using the System
Monitor utility. Configure it to show both "Memory Manager - Swap
File Size" and "Memory Manager - Swap File In Use". The value for
"swap file in use" is total amount of active memory content that has
been relocated from RAM to the swap file so as to allow that RAM to be
used for other, currently more important tasks. The value for "swap
file size" can represent one of three values:
- the minimum size specified for the swap file, if one has been set.
- the maximum size swap file normally required during recent previous
operating sessions, as Windows 98 (and Windows Me) will start up with
that size as the initial value.
- the sum total of "swap file size" plus the unused portion of memory
allocation requests for items that are currently running.

2. Never repeat never specify a maximum size limit for Virtual Memory
in Windows 9x. There is no benefit that can ever be achieved by doing
so. The only possible outcomes, in order of decreasing probability
and increasing severity, a
- Reduced performance as your system reduces disk cache in order to
meet the total memory needs of your loaded applications and data
files.
- Applications refusing to load due to "insufficient memory" errors.
- Applications crashing due to "out of memory" errors resulting in
loss of data and possible corruption of data files.
- Total system lockups or crashes due to "out of memory" errors
resulting in loss of data and possible file corruption.


Hope this is of some assistance.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
Buffalo wrote:


[snip]
Don't load a heap of FUD on me. Give me information - not FUD.

Like leading a horse to water.
PS: You asked how you could get into trouble by turning VM off.
Try it.
That way you won't have to argue about it.
You will have the proof, either way it turns out.

Ron Martell wrote in
:

"Anorack Ted" wrote:

Check out :- http://www.outertech.com/index.php?_charisma_page=index


Cacheman is pure unadulterated crapware that is totally incapable of
performing any beneficial function for any computer under any
circumstances.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

Apparently you haven't used it or used it incorrectly. With some time and
effort I was able to turn my crawling Win98SE PIII/700 machine into a
machine that runs nearly as fast as as my WinXP Pro 2.5Ghz. Both have 512MB
of RAM.

98 Guy wrote in :

Buffalo wrote:

With your limited knowledge, you shouldn't be in charge of
the project you are doong.

Everything I've read points to one thing:

Real memory + Virtual memory = total available memory (TAM).

None of the documents that have been posted so far have said that TAM
ever needs to be more than a few hundred mb.

If TAM = 512 mb, and if Real Memory = 512 mb, then Virtual Memory = 0.

I'll run some Sandra tests with and without virtual memory turned on
and see if it makes a difference.

But I think many of you out there are just plain in the habbit of
keeping virtual memory turned because "it's always been that way". If
you've got 128mb ram, yea, ok, you probably need virtual memory turned
on. But if you've got 256? 512? no way. Win-98 is hardly ever,
perhaps never used as a server. So you can't tell me it's memory
needs are significant once you've given it 256 mb of real RAM.

Don't come back and cry, if you get 'burned' real bad.

And just how would I get "burned real bad" if I run a pc with Virtual
memory turned off?

Don't load a heap of FUD on me. Give me information - not FUD.

It's strongly recommended to not disable the swap file. You can do this
briefly for diagnosis or tuning. Some applications require the presence of
the swapfile and if it's not found may result in your system hanging. Here
is an excerpt from Microsoft:

Caution Completely disabling virtual memory might cause the computer to stop
operating properly. You might not be able to restart the computer, or system
performance might be degraded. Do not disable virtual memory unless
instructed to do so by a product support representative.

Source:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...all/reskit/en-
us/part5/wrkc26.mspx

I used Cacheman to optimize my Win98SE system when I went from 128MB to
512MB. Initially it was actually performing worse with more memory. After
some monitoring and tuning it runs great. Note that during monitoring I
never actually saw my swap file get used. I still run with a minimum size of
128MB to prevent fragmentaion if it ever actually get's used and have not
specified a maximum size.

Microsoft even mentions Cacheman he

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-GB;835645

I don't recommend running the automatic memory recovery option. Simply use
it to monitor and adjust your settings. Once you are happy with the results
Cacheman no longer needs to be run at all.