If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems.
There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra 256MB. I just have two questions: (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe Mode at all? http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912 "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine)." (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
NOTE:
If the system has 700MB's of RAM or more installed the following line MUST be added to the [vcache] section of windows\system.ini file. MaxFileCache=512000 For more info see: Brian A. Sesko " too much memory?" - this discussion group Sunday, May 11, 2008 05:21 AM http://groups.google.fr/group/micros...d498782ed72def and see: someone watching Sun, 11 May 2008 17:26:00 -0500 same discussion -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ "Angus Rodgers" wrote in message ... | I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. | | There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another | similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely | because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting | some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I | would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- | ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless | it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) | | In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), | and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). | | From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression | that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed | any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really | being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra | 256MB. | | I just have two questions: | | (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot | into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too | many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe | Mode at all? | | http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912 | | "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines | the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present | when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses | to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can | increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are | allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through | 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. | | On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can | be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the | system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for | other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new | virtual machine)." | | (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. | leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications | running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) | be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to | be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? | (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) | | -- | Angus Rodgers | (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) | Contains mild peril |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
Angus Rodgers wrote:
snip In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= cached) after being loaded. If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to 512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. Hope this is of some assistance. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote:
[...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of megabytes!)? blush Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value (which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not in the binary system)? -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
... I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra 256MB. I just have two questions: (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe Mode at all? http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912 "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine)." (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) A agree with Ron Martell's reply wholeheartedly. Set the MaxFileCache to 512000 for best performance with that amount of RAM installed. Additionally, there is no need to have any MinFileCache entry in your case. I would remove the entire MinFileCache line from the .system.ini file. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell
wrote: Angus Rodgers wrote: snip In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= cached) after being loaded. If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to 512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. Hope this is of some assistance. What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
"Angus Rodgers" wrote in message
... On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell wrote: Angus Rodgers wrote: snip In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= cached) after being loaded. If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to 512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. Hope this is of some assistance. What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: Memory Management in Win98 & ME http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee"
wrote: "Angus Rodgers" wrote in message .. . What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: Memory Management in Win98 & ME http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn’t. It would be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!" That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which has still not been answered. -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode?
The number comes from both users and Microsoft via their testing. Seems the system sweet spot or what it can readily handled in the *most* number of motherboards/BIOS/chipsets and with a *normal* load of applications, devices and other, vying for addressing/resource use.. experimentation is always in order. Here's another setting that ALWAYS brought wrath from the MVPs when I used to present it he system.ini [386Enh] ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 Above works for some, others complain... As for your Safe Mode question: if your Normal Start can handle the memory, Safe Mode has no difficulty [at least in all the testing I have done]. Safe Mode isn't {by default} going to run any of the devices/drivers that might take up or conflict with addressing. Everything is limited, in compatibility mode, or disabled. Here's some personal test results for sweet spot memory: Super Socket 7 = 128 - *256 megs Slot 1 and Socket 370 = *384 megs Newer depends more on motherboard, chipset, and memory manufacturer {FSB, RAS/CAS, which VIA or Intel set, etc} from 384 to 768 megs. Results obtained when tested with Office and various games using several different video cards and processors {over-clocked and not}. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ "Angus Rodgers" wrote in message ... | On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote: | | [...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache | value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of | megabytes!)? | | blush | | Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value | (which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not | in the binary system)? | | -- | Angus Rodgers | (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) | Contains mild peril |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Safe mode to normal mode | Baseballsucka31 | General | 5 | October 9th 06 01:45 AM |
Safe Mode OK- But Not Normal Mode | Earl Partridge | General | 1 | July 17th 06 04:47 AM |
Mouse works in safe mode but not in normal mode | Dr. Palpatine | General | 4 | September 6th 05 07:51 AM |
ps/2 mouse only works in safe mode, not normal mode | Frau Frank | General | 3 | May 30th 05 05:56 PM |
Added up to 768MB Rambus, Dell 8100 ME, Problems ensued | byron | Hardware | 1 | July 2nd 04 05:39 AM |