[galahs]

Further testing has proven that theory wrong.

I just had it peak at 110.2MB


But the fact that Windows is dedicating that much DiskCache makes me think 65535 is a tad too small a limit or am I missing something?

[soporific]

This is the settings table i'm working from to set the values in the AutoSYSTEMini project i'm working on:



as you can see there's two values i'm not sure what to put for ... if anyone has ever used over 1 gig, what did you use for the MaxPhysPage value? Did you use it?

If anyone has any comments about the table, please type now or forever hold your peace!

This post has been edited by soporific: 16 October 2007 - 04:50 AM

[galahs]

Why are your MaxFileCache settings so low?

Why not 70% of the available RAM?

I also don't see the point of specifying a minimum cache size.

[galahs]

This website: http://adriansrojakp...peed_Demonz.htm is the first one I have found that actually done some benchmark testing to see the improvement using MaxFileCache and Chunksize settings.

The conclusion was the stock 512 byte chunk size was the best performer and that limiting the MaxFileCache didn't improve performance.

[dencorso]

soporific, on Oct 16 2007, 07:49 AM, said:

This is the settings table i'm working from to set the values in the AutoSYSTEMini project i'm working on:
[...]
If anyone has any comments about the table, please type now or forever hold your peace!

soporific, my friend, as I have said above:

dencorso, on Oct 13 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

Obs.: In view of Offler's cautionary post above, I'd revise my sugestions for 1.5GB to read as:
RAM ... MinFileCache ... MaxFileCache ... ChunkSize
1536 .. 4096......... 65535 ...... 1024
just to be on the safe side, if the idea is to create a general use .reg file.

That said, AFAIK your 1158 MB configuration with MaxPhysPage=48899 IS the record.
I just don't recall where I read about someone else allowing windows to see 1022 MB...
The maximum value ever mentioned by MS is MaxPhysPage=40000 (1024 MB), in Q304943, and Offler, in a post above, reported 1024 MB. And that's all I know about it. For the time being, I think 39A00 is a good idea for 1.5 and 2.0 GB, until some experimentation shows one really can go further.
I think you and Offler are the only ones presently in position to start such testing. As for me, I'll try to add 512 MB more memory asap (I already do have such a stick), but I have serious doubts my mobo can manage that much memory well. The A7V600-Xs are know to have problems with more than one memory stick at or near FSB 400 (despite what ASUS says), so I cannot guarantee I'll be able to perform such testings anytime soon. I'll keep you posted, though. And, just for the record, I use ConservativeSwapFileUsage=0.

galahs, the point is not performance: above 512 MB, the question is whether windows is able to start at all, and if it does start, whether it will perform normally or throw all sorts of errors at you, the infamous "out of memory" errors in Q253912 among them. But, as I said before, IMHO the key parameters are MaxFileCache and MaxPhysPage. The others can be tweaked for performance, but are not crucial for starting ability and stability.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 17 October 2007 - 02:12 AM

[galahs]

I had Win98 installed on my Pentium 4 which has 1.5GB of RAM.

I got the famous "Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer."

So I used the MaxPhysPage=40000 line limiting the computer to using just under 1GB and the computer ran without a problem.

That was using default system.ini values (No MaxFileCache, no conservativeswapfile settings).

Based on further reading I now believe I should have added the MaxFileCache=261120 (or something less than 512000) but I must not have had Windows use enough DiskCache to run into this lack of memory addresses problem.


So my chart would read the following

RAM ... MaxFileCache

8 . . . . . leave as default
16 . . . . leave as default
32 . . . . leave as default
48 . . . . leave as default
64 . . . . 49152 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0
128 . . . 98304 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=0
256 . . . 184320 + ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
512 . . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1
768 . . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1
1024 . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1
1536 . . 261120 + ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1
2048 . . ???

I would leave the ChuckSize as the default 512. I have seen no proof that larger chuck sizes increase performance.
I would have NO MinFileCache value.

I picked 261120 to allow enough memory addresses for users with a 256MB AGP graphics cards. Also I don't think too many people would see much benefit of having a diskcache over 255 MB.
.

This post has been edited by galahs: 17 October 2007 - 04:34 AM

[dencorso]

I managed to get my system to work with 1536 MB.
I am loading XMSDSK from config.sys, using INSTALL=E:\UTIL\XMSDSK.EXE 292992 N: /c1 /t /y
So, here are my initial results (using MaxFileCache=65535):
No MaxPhysPage or MaxPhysPage >= 48D00 -> "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows"
MaxPhysPage = 48C00 (1164 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1162 MB. It is the absolute maximum that works.
MaxPhysPage = 48B00 (1163 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1161 MB.
These two configurations above sometimes start OK, sometimes throw "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows".
MaxPhysPage = 48A00 (1162 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1160 MB;
MaxPhysPage = 48900 (1161 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1159 MB;
MaxPhysPage = 48899 (1161 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1159 MB;
MaxPhysPage = 48800 (1160 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1158 MB.
I stopped here and am testing the stability of this configuration. * If I set MaxFileCache=131072, it starts, but I get "There is not enough memory available to run this program" at some point, even with cpu-z.
And if I set MaxFileCache=262144, I just get "Insufficient Memory to Initialize Windows" and the system simply doesn't start at all.

Added 18th October 2007 - 06:40 PM:
* My stability tests on the 1158 MB show that it is stable, at least for 8h. So I reduced some more the value of MaxPhysPage, in order to find the highest value that windows accepted without displaying that strange behaviour of detecting the requested value minus 2 MB (which is a bug I never had read about before!).
MaxPhysPage = 48600 (1158 MB) works, but Win 98SE sees only 1156 MB;
The above is the smallest value with which windows still detects the requested value minus 2 MB.
So, the setting below is the maximum that behaves as expected. I'm using it now (1157 MB).
MaxPhysPage = 48500 (1157 MB) works, and Win 98SE sees all 1157 MB;
MaxPhysPage = 48400 (1156 MB) works, and Win 98SE sees all 1156 MB.
More later. HTH.

Added 22nd October 2007 - 05:33 AM:
Sorry, sorry, everybody! I made a mess of this post when I wrote it and it eluded me up to now! I fell victim of the "paste bug" and pasted MaxFileCache where I should have written MaxPhysPage, meaning to modify it, and just forgot to do it. Now it is as it should be. Sorry!

BTW, I'm presently using MaxPhysPage = 48600 and MaxFileCache=98304, without any problems, for the last two days. I'll try again to raise MaxFileCache (yes, MaxFileCache!) a little more tomorrow...

[Analada]

galahs, on Oct 16 2007, 07:16 AM, said:

This website: http://adriansrojakp...peed_Demonz.htm is the first one I have found that actually done some benchmark testing to see the improvement using MaxFileCache and Chunksize settings.

The conclusion was the stock 512 byte chunk size was the best performer and that limiting the MaxFileCache didn't improve performance.

Thanks for this info. I have been following this thread with interest, and have tried various settings. I have 1GB RAM and also have under [386Enh]:

MaxPhysPage=40000
MinSPs=16
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
DMABufferSize=64

WITHOUT DOUBT the setting that has worked best under [vcache] -- that makes most use of the 1GB RAM fitted -- is this:

MaxFileCache=522240
MaxPhysPage=40000

So, I think that's good advice (above). I found that other settings, such as limiting MaxFileCache didn't take advantage of the 1GB RAM (which often still had 700MB left after several hours of working. Now, at last, most of the 1GB is getting used.

[galahs]

That is exactly my thought.

Having lots of un-used RAM is wasted RAM.

Windows FileCache is used to speed up Windows. The more RAM you allow it to use the faster your windows experience will be. And Windows is clever enough that if a program your running needs more RAM to run a program, it will decrease the size of its FileCache.


That is why I still think users are setting MaxFileCache too low.



The other thing we need to clarrify is the effect of VideoMemory on memory address allocation.

How does using a graphics card with a large memory (64MB +) affect the highest allowable MaxFileCache value?

[galahs]

Quote

MORE INFORMATION
Vcache is limited internally to a maximum cache size of 800 MB.

This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800 MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128-MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses.

[soporific]

thanks to everyone for their replies and stay tuned for my new table! I may even make Dencorso happy with this one

[galahs]

I noticed on some newer AGP motherboards they can allow an AGP Apperature of up to 512MB!!!!
If you chose that you would have already hit Windows98 Memory Address limitation.

Remember, you AGP Apperature and and MaxFileCache value when combined, cannot = more than 512MB!!!

[soporific]

galahs, on Oct 22 2007, 07:17 PM, said:

I noticed on some newer AGP motherboards they can allow an AGP Apperature of up to 512MB!!!!
If you chose that you would have already hit Windows98 Memory Address limitation.

Remember, you AGP Apperature and and MaxFileCache value when combined, cannot = more than 512MB!!!

yes but in those cases, surely it would be up to the user to notch the value down. I wonder if there is a command line tool that would tell us how much video memory is being assigned. Then we could overcome even this.

Here's my new table:



reasoning:

* why are there no settings for 64 MB RAM and under? MS recommended 64 as the RAM to use for optimal usage at the time the OS was designed/released. I trust they know what's best for these RAM sizes. If anyone has documentation that says the opposite, please post a link.

* No MinFileCache setting: i agree that there isn't any good reason behind setting a minimum MinFileCache value ... well, no reason i know of.

* the 1 gig settings: I think that if MS knew about the 1 gig limit and assumed that a user may have this, then i would think it safe to allow the maximum MaxFileCache setting possible as opposed to an 'optimal' setting. I find the arguments of people who have tested extensively with 1 gig compelling to use.

* The Chunk File settings: - as i understand how chunk file settings work, i don't agree with leaving this at 512 for the higher RAM values. I must admit to not having tested this idea out in practice but you can't just create any old test to prove whether this will improve performance, i'm yet to be convinced of whats been said so far. Theoretically, if you have lots and lots of RAM, using larger chunks is more efficient when moving large amounts around. Whether or not you get much of a % increase in completion time is what i would be interested in.

and UBCD 4.6.2 will be setting MaxPhysPage lower than 39000 because users with more than 1280 will not get thru the install process. I have just tested with 20000 then and it works, 39000 didn't work and this was without any AGP aperture setting of note.

This post has been edited by soporific: 22 October 2007 - 04:30 AM

[galahs]

No real complaints from me


Personally I don't think you wouldn't often need a MaxFileCache value over 255MB (unless operating as a FileServer) but other than that the values look good!

This post has been edited by galahs: 22 October 2007 - 06:48 AM

[Marius '95]

Free memory means memory NOT USED! If I have a lot of memory, why not use it for disk cache if no other program needs it? Why leave it free?
I have 1GB and 768MB are used for disk cache. Swap is enabled, but it's rarely used.

[RJARRRPCGP]

galahs, on Oct 17 2007, 05:53 AM, said:

I had Win98 installed on my Pentium 4 which has 1.5GB of RAM.

I got the famous "Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer."

I gotten that error message (or similar) just by setting the swap file to bigger than 768 MB! That's a new bug I found!

Have you ever saw that before?

[dencorso]

RJARRRPCGP, on Oct 22 2007, 06:32 PM, said:

galahs, on Oct 17 2007, 05:53 AM, said:

I had Win98 installed on my Pentium 4 which has 1.5GB of RAM.

I got the famous "Insufficient memory to initialize windows. Quit one or more memory-resident programs or remove unnecessary utilities from your Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files, and restart your computer."

I gotten that error message (or similar) just by setting the swap file to bigger than 768 MB! That's a new bug I found!

Have you ever saw that before?

Lots of times! Please read all posts in this thread from, at least, post # 10 and follow the links therein. You'll will find lots of interesting info on that matter in them.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 22 October 2007 - 10:11 PM

[dencorso]

soporific, on Oct 22 2007, 07:26 AM, said:

* the 1 gig settings: I think that if MS knew about the 1 gig limit and assumed that a user may have this, then i would think it safe to allow the maximum MaxFileCache setting possible as opposed to an 'optimal' setting. I find the arguments of people who have tested extensively with 1 gig compelling to use.

Sorry, soporific, but I still disagree.

1) RAM 1024 WRAM 922 MaxFileCache=522240 is a daring setting that only a few can use. Gape found it already and revised his tweak in sesp 2.0.1 and later to MaxFileCache=393216 (see item 2.0.1 in post #1). Eck also agrees, as you know. I used that value initially, but eventually got "out of memory" errors every now and then. So I did some tests and decided to set MaxFileCache=262144, which never gave me any grief. My system ran OK with that setting for about a year, with uptimes up to 40h, before I shut it down. If you want a general setting, use MaxFileCache=262144.

2) I am using RAM 1536 WRAM 1156 for less than a week, and engaged in heavy experimenting, at present. I can confirm that MaxFileCache=65535 works, but now I know 98304 is also OK. I'll now try 114688 and report my results, as soon as I have them. I do believe Offler's statement that 131072 is problematic.
[New text, added 1st November 2007 - 03:15 AM:] Yes, MaxFileCache=114688 works OK! [New text ends].

3) For RAM > 1536 I think more testing is needed, but I haven't the memory to do it. So I'd stick to Andy Aronoff's
MaxFileCache=29696 (with ChunkSize=512), because of his reporting that more than 30000 prevents windows from starting.

4)Above RAM 2048 I still think is a place no one has ever gone before...

Your other settings seem very sensible to me, and I do agree with them.

If anyone here has, or has had, a system running stably with 2048MB or more of RAM, please do tell us about your experience.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 01 November 2007 - 12:18 AM

[Analada]

soporific, on Oct 22 2007, 04:26 AM, said:

* the 1 gig settings[/b]: I think that if MS knew about the 1 gig limit and assumed that a user may have this, then i would think it safe to allow the maximum MaxFileCache setting possible as opposed to an 'optimal' setting. I find the arguments of people who have tested extensively with 1 gig compelling to use.

I can confirm that since using maximum MaxFileCache on my 1GB RAM win98SE PC, the following have been noticed:

* Faster operation (intuitive feel)
* Hardly any disk caching activity when using firefox and other memory "keen" apps
* No shut-down problems (sometimes had these)

[vcache]

MaxFileCache=522240
MaxPhysPage=40000

[386Enh]
...
MaxPhysPage=40000
MinSPs=16
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
DMABufferSize=64

[MDGx]

These are iexpress installers for Xeno86's files:

* Unofficial Windows 98 SE Out Of Memory Errors VCACHE.VXD 4.10.2223 Fix:
http://support.micro....com/?id=253912
- VCACHE.VXD Fix [118 KB, English + Polish]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q253912.EXE
- VCACHE.VXD Fix [122 KB, French]:
http://www.mdgx.com/files/Q253912F.EXE
More info:
http://www.msfn.org/...howtopic=105373
IMPORTANT:
This VCACHE.VXD Fix is experimental!

Details [pops up whenever you install Q253912]:

Quote

Unofficial Windows 98 SE Out of Memory Errors Q253912 VCACHE.VXD 4.10.2223 Fix
VCACHE Fix attempt by Xeno86

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT:
You MUST REBOOT at END of INSTALL for this Fix to complete properly!
Do NOT install this Fix MORE THAN ONCE WITHOUT REBOOTING AFTER FIRST INSTALL!

This is an Unofficial attempt to fix "Out of Memory" Error Messages with Large Amounts (768 MB or 1 GB or more) of RAM Installed problem described in Knowledge Base (MSKB) article KB253912 (Q253912):
http://support.micro....com/?id=253912

DESCRIPTION:
Normally VCache driver calculates maximum cache size based on the amount of memory (RAM) present. While this works OK for computers with less or equal 512 MB of memory, on computers with more memory VCache allocates too much memory from system area and you can experience problems (see KB article above).
This fix limits maximum cache size allocated dynamically to 384 MB thus removing the need to apply any of the workarounds mentioned in the KB article.
Power users however have the ability to set the limit to a different value (lower or higher) through the MaxFileCache entry under the [vcache] section in the SYSTEM.INI file found in %windir% [%windir% = usually C:\WINDOWS].
Generic example:

[vcache]
MaxFileCache=24576

Edit SYSTEM.INI with Notepad or similar plain text/ASCII editor:
http://www.mdgx.com/toy.htm#TXT
or use Sysedit:
%windir%\SYSTEM\SYSEDIT.EXE

Everything here applies only to English + Polish editions. [?]

This fix/update is cumulative. This means it includes ALL BUG fixes from all previous official + unofficial patches/(hot)fixes/updates. Do NOT replace with ANY other older file version(s) UNLESS having problems with current file version(s).

NOTE:
Provided 'as is', without any warranties, expressed or implied.
Use at your own risk!

INSTALL:
This fix installs VCACHE.VXD 4.10.2223 into %windir%\SYSTEM\VMM32 [%windir% = usually C:\WINDOWS].
This fix also renames existing %windir%\SYSTEM\VMM32\VCACHE.VXD (if any) to VCACHE.VXO , which is used by Uninstall (see below) to restore original file (if any).

UNINSTALL:
How to uninstall this fix and restore original file (if any):
Start button -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> select "Unofficial Out of Memory Errors Q253912 VCACHE.VXD Fix" -> click Add/Remove button -> reboot.

USEFUL LINKS:
- Windows 98 SE "Out of Memory" Errors with > 1 GB RAM VCACHE.VXD Patch MSFN forum:
http://www.msfn.org/...howtopic=105373
- Windows 98 SE "Not Enough Memory" error discussion, possible fix found:
http://www.msfn.org/board/?showtopic=99263...memory+problems
- MicroSoft Knowledge Base (MSKB) Article Q253912:
http://support.micro....com/?id=253912

Enjoy.
__________________________

Xeno86:
Could you please post the English build of VCACHE.VXD 4.10.2223?
Thanks.