Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

VCACHE fix attempt

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

#51
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Well, change 2 bytes twice is not much a patch. :sneaky:

Well first of all, not 2 bytes twice but 20 bytes. If I changed 2 bytes I would completely limit maximum cache size setting, while this fix leaves you the freedom and flexibility to set it to whatever value you want (max 800M). It only affects default (automatic) value.

Secondly, what kind of fix did you expect for this particular issue? I'm open for ideas and discussion.
If you can do better - prove it :rolleyes:

It's certainly better than the "workaround" advised by Microsoft

Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB or less.

:whistle:

... and it can be easily slipstreamed into Windows installation CD.

Hi, Xeno86! :hello:

I now have had time to analyze your patch, and I have to strongly disagree with Tihiy:
You patch is concise, elegant and to the point. And far better than the classic "two bytes twice" aproach, because it alters only the default value, while allowing for "MaxFileCache" values both above an below the default, provided they are not above 800 MB. My compliments!

Keep on the great work! You rock! :thumbup


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
nicke85

nicke85

    Chetnik

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined 13-May 06
What that patch mean Xeno86?
Can I use 2x2GB (4GB) of ram in dual mode on 98SE?

#53
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

What that patch mean Xeno86?
Can I use 2x2GB (4GB) of ram in dual mode on 98SE?

4GB is a no-no for Win 9x/ME.

#54
mykonos

mykonos
  • Member
  • 3 posts
  • Joined 19-February 08
And...somebody could tell me how to install win98 on a 2gb pc??because im trying that and when im installing, computer need reboot and give me the error of "Not enough memory" :S

#55
alexanrs

alexanrs

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Joined 30-August 05

And...somebody could tell me how to install win98 on a 2gb pc??because im trying that and when im installing, computer need reboot and give me the error of "Not enough memory" :S


Edit SYSTEM.INI to limit your memory to something like 512Mb (MaxPhysPage=20000 under [386Enh]), install all updates, patches (including this :rolleyes: ) and then try removing that line. You'll probably need to keep playing with SYSTEM.INI for your system to work properly again.

#56
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

4GB is a no-no for Win 9x/ME


With the proper Patches, Windows 98/SE/ME can run as close to 4GB as your Motherboard will map to the 32-Bit Address Space.
Most Motherboards will only map 3GB to the 32-Bit Address Space pushing any additional memory above the 4GB boundary.
I found an ECS Motherboard that allowed me to tweak this limit, allowing me to run Windows 98/SE/ME with 3647MB of RAM.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#57
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Hi, rloew!

4GB is a no-no for Win 9x/ME

Well, I guess I was unusually terse when I wrote that, thanks for elaborating on the topic.
And since you began, let me add that, because it is a hardware problem, it is OS independent, so that not only Win 9x/ME, but also Win NT/2k/XP/2003/Vista, in their 32-bit versions are usually limited to 3.5 GB (for more on that follow this link and the links in it).
I think that also GrayPhound's outstanding translation of Igor Leyko's article (link) is an enlightening further reading, for those who want to undersand better the Windows virtual address space layout.

I found an ECS Motherboard that allowed me to tweak this limit, allowing me to run Windows 98/SE/ME with 3647MB of RAM.

Could you please tell some more specifics about that ECS mobo? Is it intended for intel or AMD? What's the chipset and maximum allowable RAM for it? Sorry, I'm aware this is somewhat off-topic, but I just couldn't resist asking...

Edited by dencorso, 27 March 2008 - 04:59 PM.


#58
rloew

rloew

    MSFN Expert

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined 30-May 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Could you please tell some more specifics about that ECS mobo? Is it intended for intel or AMD? What's the chipset and maximum allowable RAM for it? Sorry, I'm aware this is somewhat off-topic, but I just couldn't resist asking...


The ECS GEFORCE 6100SM-M Motherboard is a nVidia MCP61S Based system for the AMD CPU.

The manual say it can support up to 16GB of RAM using two slots. I have 2x2GB of RAM installed totalling 4GB.

The BIOS has a setting that determines the limit of 32-Bit RAM. Additional RAM is shifted above 4GB into the 64-Bit Address Space.
The setting is a 8-Bit HEX value that sets the limit in 16MB increments.
The default is C0 which provides 3GB of 32-Bit RAM.
With the on-board video disabled, I was able to set the value to E4. This provides 3648MB.
1MB and 64K are reserved by the BIOS leaving just under 3647MB.
I was able to run my modified Windows 9X using this setting.
Ye who enter my domain. Beware! Lest you become educated in the mysteries of the universe and suffer forever from the desire to know more.

#59
tonich

tonich

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 33 posts
  • Joined 21-September 06
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:

#60
Offler

Offler

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Joined 29-October 06
I hope that my message will help you, but i fear that you will not like it...

I have been testing various settings of system, Vcache and some hw changes.

In ALL cases the only stable setting when system was not affected by "not enought memory" was:
Maxfilecache=32768
Minfilecache=32768

i have three testing tools - Tv tuner, command prompt, and Ultima Online

with any hw and bios setting and with Maxfilecache=65536 i was able to work for several hours. Yesterday i worked with photoshop, watching tv, videos, listening music, opening and closing Ultima online. i was able to run system this way for 8 hours. then i attempled to open Ultima Online but system refuse to do so, because of lack of memory.

please - try this setting, work for many hours and say if you encounter any trouble, or try your own, with command prompt, tv tuners and uo and watch if and when the problem may occur.

Right now i believe that this is the last well working setting for win9x. with it NO errors with memory occured.

#61
Th3_uN1Qu3

Th3_uN1Qu3

    Digital sinner

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined 17-March 08

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.
What's the point of security features if we have to disable them for things to work right?

p35-ds3 / e6550 @ 3.5ghz 500fsb scythe mugen / 8gb pqi ddr2 800 @ 1000 / sapphire hd3870 / 320gb wd / x64 / nokia 920c 19"
toshi portege 4010 / p3 tualatin @ 933mhz / 512mb pc133 sdram / 16mb cyberblade / wifi / irda / sd / 30gb ibm / me / 12.1" tft
6bxds / 2x p3 @ 700mhz / 1gb cl2 sdram / sapphire 9800 pro 256mb / awe64 isa / sil3112a pci + 320gb wd / xp / thomson 24" tv

#62
tonich

tonich

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 33 posts
  • Joined 21-September 06
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:

#63
celeron64

celeron64
  • Member
  • 8 posts
  • Joined 10-September 08
[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, 17 January 2010 - 09:56 PM.
Removed duplicate of the same quote, added translation... (报价 = QUOTE...).


#64
trevor89

trevor89

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • Joined 31-December 08
  • OS:98SE
What the hell does that say?

Trev
Posted Image

#65
halohalo

halohalo

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Joined 07-December 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
google mistranslated post

#66
rainyd

rainyd

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined 04-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
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, 20 January 2010 - 01:59 PM.


#67
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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.

#68
rainyd

rainyd

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined 04-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
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).

#69
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined 12-January 10
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

(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.

#70
rainyd

rainyd

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined 04-April 05
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
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, 20 January 2010 - 02:09 PM.


#71
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 765 posts
  • Joined 12-January 10
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag
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.

#72
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

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:

#73
MDGx

MDGx

    98SE2ME + 98MP10

  • Super Moderator
  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined 22-November 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
Important...

DirectoryCache is an invalid value, does not exist:
http://www.msfn.org/...o...80800&st=38

HTH

#74
Sound Lover

Sound Lover
  • Member
  • 6 posts
  • Joined 19-November 09
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, 07 February 2010 - 12:13 PM.
Removed live link to the site offering malware.


#75
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 6,096 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Never post a live link to any site offering malicious content! Posted Image 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 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users