Xeno86

VCACHE fix attempt

98 posts in this topic

Hi there!

Is there any difference between 1x1GB and 2x512 mb RAM under Win98?

Can I get any benefits of dual channel (2x512 mb), or shell I go for the cheaper solution - 1x1GB?

Any difference in fixing the error with one or two sticks of RAM? :unsure:

2x 512 in dual channel will give you better performance since it's a hardware thing, it doesn't depend on the OS at all. And if it's one or two sticks windoze will not care, therefore the workaround will still be needed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the replay!

I consider building a new system, based on MSI K9MM-V motherboard.

I will definitely let you know my particular solution, at a time. :hello:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[报价名称=galahs'日期= 2007年10月15日,下午8时43'后= '701788]

有趣的我做了再次进行测试,试图与超负荷运行应用程序和再次DiskCache在103.8MB高峰前收缩系统!

难道103.8MB一个内置的限制与256MB的RAM?的系统

我将进行一些测试,看看我是否能复制这种行为。[/报价]

:thumbup

Interesting I did the test again, trying to overload the system with running apps and again the DiskCache peaked at 103.8MB before shrinking!

Could it be that 103.8MB is a built in limit for systems with 256MB of RAM?

I'll carry out some more testing to see if I can replicate this behaviour.

:thumbup Edited by dencorso
Removed duplicate of the same quote, added translation... (报价 = QUOTE...).
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What value guys, you recommend for 1 GB of RAM?

I've set MinFileCache=64 MB, MaxFile Cache=256 MB and chunk size=1024 (what sort of benefit you can expect with higher value of it?).

Btw, I'm interested what you think abou that article: http://www.thpc.info/ram/vcache.html

Edited by rainyd
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the following values:

[vcache]

MinFileCache=4096

MaxFileCache=393216

ChunkSize=2048

NameCache=4096

DirectoryCache=96

And I do use Xeno86's fixed vcache.vxd, which respects these settings, but will limit the cache to 384 MiB, and not 800 MiB as the original MS file does, when these settings are absent from the system.ini or, more important, on entry to "Safe Mode", when all of msdos.sys, autoexec.bat, config.sys, system.ini and win.ini are ignored.

The web-site you pointed to is one of the sources for 384 MiB, and Gape's usage of it throughout most of the versions of his uSP (although I think now he's dropped it, but I don't know why) is also a good reference that it actually works well and reliably in the real world.

I've discussed this point in the past, rather extensively, as have also others, notably soporific. If you delve head-first in my > 1 GiB list thread, linked below, to the right side of my signature, you'll find all that has been discussed about it. The present thread, BTW, is also linked from there, of course.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dencorso, thank you for the reply - I'll check those settings. :)

Btw, for tweaking them, I'm using old but fine freeware program called Cacheman (version 5.50).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(what sort of benefit you can expect with higher value of it?).

Well VCache is disk data cached in memory for reaccessing that data without needing to fetch it to disk again so the higher the max value the better IMO.

The maximum size VCache can have is 800MB if I am not mistaken but out of memory issues with some applications are known to exist if it is set to above 512MB.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loblo, my question was concerned specifically to the chunk not Vcache size. ;)

Still, I don't know what is advantage having 2048 bytes instead of 1024.

Edited by rainyd
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have been using chunk values of 16kb and 4096kb and I can't say I have seen much of a perceptible difference if any.

Presumably chunk size is akin to cluster size in a filesystem and should have the same advantages/inconveniences as those, eg small size would mean less wasted space but more propensity to be fragmented perhaps.

If someone knows better, let us know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the memory is paged anyway and the memory page is 4 kiB, 4096 (= one page) is the maximum value that makes any sense, IMO. I use half that because I couldn't find a test condition capable of showing any difference between those two settings, and chose the lower arbitrarily. Notice that the ChunkSize is expressed in bytes, not kiB.

The definitive reference about the ChunkSize is Adrian Rojack's Optimization Guide. All this have been said in the thread I pointed to, so I'll stop repeating them from this post on. C'mon: it's all pointed to in the > 1GiB thread...

Start reading! :yes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: dencorco's POST # 72

I linked to: Adrian Rojack's Optimization Guide and got a Virus pop-up.

"WARNING!

Critical Security Warning! Your PC was infected with a self-infecting virus after Spyware attack.

Windows Defender Scanner will perform a free scan of your PC to find all System Threats.

<link removed>

I didn't trust this pop-up but I had to shut down my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.20) with CTRL-ALT-DEL to exit this site.

Ran SpyBot 1.6.2 and SuperAntiSpyware 4.24.0.1004 but found nothing.

Should I dig deeper?

jp

Edited by dencorso
Removed live link to the site offering malware.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never post a live link to any site offering malicious content! icon7.gif Consider yourself warned!

Never trust pop-ups of unknown origin, because they almost always are scams temselves! There's no virus at Rojack's page. I checked that myself right now. As for the specific pop-up you saw, it *is* a scam. You'd really be in trouble if you had downloaded and installed their "anti-virus", which is in fact a malware. Read more about it here (link). But since you didn't trust it and downloaded nothing from it, you're probably on the safe side. No need to dig any deeper, in what regards to that pop-up, unless it keeps on appearing on other unrelated sites (in which case you may have got a browser hijacker added to your browser).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.