Strange memory problem

Not to nit-pick, but until you understand how ring 0 implications tie in you
don't understand the problem. And from what I see, you don't understand ring
0. ;-)

--
Walter Clayton - AuhMa-VSOP, MS-MVP
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp|


"????? ????? (Igor Leyko)" wrote in message
...
"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
That's one heck of a REPEATED mistype!! - and you're still wrong - since
the
vcache is the primary cause of the problem, and is limited by the
MaxFileCache entry, NOT the MaxPhysPage entry (which is in [386Emh]
anyway.
I suggest that you go back and relearn a few things...
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

Not the best source of information, at least for me. Some inaccuracies,
repeating the wrong statement from MSKB 304943... Sorry, I have no time
just now for detailed critics. And it is too late, I suppose.

I attached a preliminary translation of the article - any comments and
exceptions are welcome.

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

Any comments to article, Walter?

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

"Walter Clayton" wrote in message
...
Not to nit-pick, but until you understand how ring 0 implications tie in
you don't understand the problem. And from what I see, you don't
understand ring 0. ;-)

--
Walter Clayton - AuhMa-VSOP, MS-MVP
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp|


"????? ????? (Igor Leyko)" wrote in message
...
"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
That's one heck of a REPEATED mistype!! - and you're still wrong - since
the
vcache is the primary cause of the problem, and is limited by the
MaxFileCache entry, NOT the MaxPhysPage entry (which is in [386Emh]
anyway.
I suggest that you go back and relearn a few things...
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

Not the best source of information, at least for me. Some inaccuracies,
repeating the wrong statement from MSKB 304943... Sorry, I have no time
just now for detailed critics. And it is too late, I suppose.

I attached a preliminary translation of the article - any comments and
exceptions are welcome.

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

This symptoms says for me, that the tweak with MaxFileCache=512000, mentioned
in this thread, won't be enough (though it is necessary), and that you have
the lines with Himem.sys and EMM386.EXE in config.sys.

If I'm correct -- disable them both (put the word REM followed by space to the
beginning of each the line).

And with all due respect to Noel Paton:

Igor mistyped with SmartDrv -- but it is interesting, what the lines:

Loading VxD = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE

in Bootlog.txt mean, if in Win9x quote SmartDrv is NOT involved here at any
point!! /quote...

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (2000..2006, Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======



On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 15:07:58 +0000 (UTC), Andrea
wrote:

I've a client with windows 98 installed. All was working fine since I've
installed the antivirus and now a pc with 1GB of ram is unable to open the
DOS shell since memory is finished.

I really don't know ... Any idea? I don't think that the cause could be the
antivirus, because on another client with 256MB of ram, the pc open and close
the dos windows withouth any problems.

Thanks for any reply

"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
...
This symptoms says for me, that the tweak with MaxFileCache=512000,
mentioned
in this thread, won't be enough (though it is necessary), and that you
have
the lines with Himem.sys and EMM386.EXE in config.sys.

If I'm correct -- disable them both (put the word REM followed by space to
the
beginning of each the line).

And with all due respect to Noel Paton:

Igor mistyped with SmartDrv -- but it is interesting, what the lines:

Loading VxD = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE

in Bootlog.txt mean, if in Win9x quote SmartDrv is NOT involved here at
any
point!! /quote...



try deleting SmartDrv.exe - Windows boots fine, and no entries in the
bootlog.
If you're loading it from the config.sys or autoexec.bat, it is NOT required
for Windows.
It's required for DOS booting only

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

try deleting SmartDrv.exe - Windows boots fine, and no entries in the
bootlog.
If you're loading it from the config.sys or autoexec.bat, it is NOT
required
for Windows.
It's required for DOS booting only

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Cool thread, wish I could play too.
Out of curiousity, does the 'v' in [vcache] mean virtual?
Gekko

Yes, V is for Virtual ;-)

Regards
Mark Ddormer

"Gekko" wrote in message
...

try deleting SmartDrv.exe - Windows boots fine, and no entries in the
bootlog.
If you're loading it from the config.sys or autoexec.bat, it is NOT
required
for Windows.
It's required for DOS booting only

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Cool thread, wish I could play too.
Out of curiousity, does the 'v' in [vcache] mean virtual?
Gekko

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:06:47 +0100, "Noel Paton"
wrote:


"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
.. .
This symptoms says for me, that ... you have
the lines with Himem.sys and EMM386.EXE in config.sys.
...

And with all due respect to Noel Paton:

Igor mistyped with SmartDrv -- but it is interesting, what the lines:

Loading VxD = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE

in Bootlog.txt mean,
...
try deleting SmartDrv.exe - Windows boots fine, and no entries in the
bootlog.If you're loading it from the config.sys or autoexec.bat, it is NOT required
for Windows.
It's required for DOS booting only

I see these lines now, in a clean sample of Win98SE (in virtual machine), with
the only settings in Config.sys/Autoexec.bat that concern my language (Ru)
settings. So it is the native Win98 behavior.

I do know of course, that Win9x/ME does not use Smartdrv in GUI, and even
blocks it here if it is loading from autoexec.bat. Smartdrv is not needed
actually and for DOS as well -- but if using, it speeds up the DOS stage of
system by caching the File Alocation Table and the parts of the files.

So I suppose it is using (if isn't deleted manually) only at the first stage
of the boot process, as the accelerating engine. This part of my reply was
only to attract the attention, that not all is so simple like it seems...

As for the main part of the discussion -- several years ago, when I installed
a new computer with 1GB of RAM, I got the same result as Andrea, and had to
investigate the background of the problem: more from the interest, because I
didn't suppose to use Win98 at that computer. MaxFileCache line was inserted
from the very beginning -- and EMM386 came to light (and even Himem.sys -- if
it is loading not by default as in general, but from Config.sys). And it
turned that it was not the first bell: EMM386 does not work correctly even
with 512MB of RAM, though I know only one minor problem here (it blocks
entirely 1MB of 512). The results were posted in this group then.

--
Mikhail Zhilin
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
http://www.aha.ru/~mwz
Sorry, no technical support by e-mail.
Please reply to the newsgroups only.
======

"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 12:06:47 +0100, "Noel Paton"
wrote:


"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
. ..
This symptoms says for me, that ... you have
the lines with Himem.sys and EMM386.EXE in config.sys.
...

And with all due respect to Noel Paton:

Igor mistyped with SmartDrv -- but it is interesting, what the lines:

Loading VxD = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE
LoadSuccess = C:\WINDOWS\SMARTDRV.EXE

in Bootlog.txt mean,
...
try deleting SmartDrv.exe - Windows boots fine, and no entries in the
bootlog.If you're loading it from the config.sys or autoexec.bat, it is
NOT required
for Windows.
It's required for DOS booting only

I see these lines now, in a clean sample of Win98SE (in virtual machine),
with
the only settings in Config.sys/Autoexec.bat that concern my language (Ru)
settings. So it is the native Win98 behavior.

I do know of course, that Win9x/ME does not use Smartdrv in GUI, and even
blocks it here if it is loading from autoexec.bat. Smartdrv is not needed
actually and for DOS as well -- but if using, it speeds up the DOS stage
of
system by caching the File Alocation Table and the parts of the files.

So I suppose it is using (if isn't deleted manually) only at the first
stage
of the boot process, as the accelerating engine. This part of my reply was
only to attract the attention, that not all is so simple like it seems...

As for the main part of the discussion -- several years ago, when I
installed
a new computer with 1GB of RAM, I got the same result as Andrea, and had
to
investigate the background of the problem: more from the interest, because
I
didn't suppose to use Win98 at that computer. MaxFileCache line was
inserted
from the very beginning -- and EMM386 came to light (and even Himem.sys --
if
it is loading not by default as in general, but from Config.sys). And it
turned that it was not the first bell: EMM386 does not work correctly even
with 512MB of RAM, though I know only one minor problem here (it blocks
entirely 1MB of 512). The results were posted in this group then.



In a default install of Win98, AFAIK, there's never a mention of the
SmartDrv.exe, except possibly actually during the install and deleted at
completion - certainly, the VPC I used for the test was a totally default
install from a retail disk - and no other software has been installed since
(not even patches), except for the VPC Additions required to make things
work right

I don't think I have any foreign-language copies of Win98 to test.....
No - I had a clearout last month and got rid of them all

There should be no need for either EMM386 or HIMEM in config/autoexec - the
Windows memory drivers take over very early in the boot process, and unless
you're attempting something strange, are all you need. I would suspect
though, that having Himem and EMM386 present in config.sys/autoexec.bat may
even slow the boot, as Windows would have to unload them first, prior to
reloading Himem.sys (but NOT EMM386!)
On my system, according to the Bootlog, Himem.sys is the
second/third-installed driver (after display.sys and a VPC-CD ROM driver)
EMM386 is not loaded at all (which is not surprising).
EMM386 ONLY works in DOS, and with the first.
In fact... looking at the documentatiuon shows that HIMEM.SYS is loaded by
IO.SYS in Win98, and specifically states"Do not add SMARTDrive or other disk
caches. Windows 98 includes built-in caching"
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc....mspx?mfr=true
although it also contradicts itself by saying about Bootlog.txt " Verify
that the section contains this entry: loadsuccess=c:\windows\himem.sys If
not, verify the file and entry in Config.sys" about the error "No extended
memory specification (XMS) memory"
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/arc....mspx?mfr=true
also states:-
. In Config.sys, load himem and emm386 (using either the ram or the
noems switch), and load any required real-mode drivers and applications
using devicehigh or loadhigh statements.
. Do not load smartdrv in your configuration files, except in
configuration files for an application that you run in MS-DOS mode. Windows
98 uses an improved method for disk caching, so loading smartdrv typically
wastes memory that could be used by MS-DOS-based applications.



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2006, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.crashfixpc.com

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

On yours?

If so, you've simply described some symptoms without getting to the actual
cause.

The issue is how 9x manages ring 0 and what drivers, especially non-MS
supplied drivers expect to see. It's not unusual that those drivers are
overflowing memory counters thus causing a false SOS condition. One of the
weaknesses of 9x kernel is that when a driver requests memory the kernel can
not fail the memory request. Either the getmem is honored or the system goes
down.

Depending on hardware configuration, 9x starts to break above the 384M line.
I have seen instances where even throttling vcache fails to resolve the
issue with only 512M real installed.

--
Walter Clayton - AuhMa-VSOP, MS-MVP
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp|


"????? ????? (Igor Leyko)" wrote in message
...
Any comments to article, Walter?

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

"Walter Clayton" wrote in message
...
Not to nit-pick, but until you understand how ring 0 implications tie in
you don't understand the problem. And from what I see, you don't
understand ring 0. ;-)

--
Walter Clayton - AuhMa-VSOP, MS-MVP
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp|


"????? ????? (Igor Leyko)" wrote in message
...
"Noel Paton" wrote in message
...
That's one heck of a REPEATED mistype!! - and you're still wrong -
since the
vcache is the primary cause of the problem, and is limited by the
MaxFileCache entry, NOT the MaxPhysPage entry (which is in [386Emh]
anyway.
I suggest that you go back and relearn a few things...
http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm

Not the best source of information, at least for me. Some inaccuracies,
repeating the wrong statement from MSKB 304943... Sorry, I have no time
just now for detailed critics. And it is too late, I suppose.

I attached a preliminary translation of the article - any comments and
exceptions are welcome.

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

"Mikhail Zhilin" wrote in message
...
So I suppose it is using (if isn't deleted manually) only at the first
stage
of the boot process, as the accelerating engine. This part of my reply was
only to attract the attention, that not all is so simple like it seems...


Well, waiting a comments not to me and my knowledge but the subject and my
article statements I can tell something about SmartDrivet.
Windows loads not smartdrv.exe but smartdrv.vxd, Windows driver stored in
smartdrv.exe since its appearing in MS-DOS 6.
This driver communicates with DOS part of smartdrv. If a serious error
occures the driver displays error message. It was required in Windows 3.1
which did nit have its own disk cashe. It was required in WfW 3.11 because
it's VCACHE could not cache floppies.
I believe there is no real need in this driver in Windows 95 and upper but
it was not removed due to compatibility issues and because developers do
not like the radical changes in code and algorithms.

--
????? ????? (Igor Leyko) MS MVP Windows - Shell/User