[Th3_uN1Qu3]

tonich, on Mar 31 2008, 07:05 PM, said:

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?

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.

[tonich]

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.

[celeron64]

[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]

galahs, on Oct 16 2007, 12:43 AM, said:

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.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 17 January 2010 - 09:56 PM
Reason for edit: Removed duplicate of the same quote, added translation... (报价 = QUOTE...).

[trevor89]

What the hell does that say?

Trev

[halohalo]

google mistranslated post

[rainyd]

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

This post has been edited by rainyd: 20 January 2010 - 01:59 PM

[dencorso]

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.

[rainyd]

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).

[loblo]

rainyd, on Jan 19 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

(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.

[rainyd]

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.

This post has been edited by rainyd: 20 January 2010 - 02:09 PM

[loblo]

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.

[dencorso]

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!

[MDGx]

Important...

DirectoryCache is an invalid value, does not exist:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showto...80800&st=38

HTH

[Sound Lover]

RE: dencorco's POST # 72

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

Quote

"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

This post has been edited by dencorso: 07 February 2010 - 12:13 PM
Reason for edit: Removed live link to the site offering malware.

[dencorso]

Never post a live link to any site offering malicious content! 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).

[Sound Lover]

Dencorso, thanks for removing the live link from my post.

My bad!

jp

[Hu$tle]

Xeno86, on 02 October 2007 - 01:57 PM, said:

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

This canNOT be slipstreamed, I just tried it and the Vcache.vxd didn't copy.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

Analada, on 23 October 2007 - 02:30 AM, said:

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

dencorso, on 19 January 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

I use the following values:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=4096
MaxFileCache=393216
ChunkSize=2048
NameCache=4096
DirectoryCache=96

Are there any objections in using these settings? I don't understand how there can so many different setting for 1GB of ram. There should only be one ultimate setting.

This post has been edited by PROBLEMCHYLD: 19 September 2012 - 09:33 AM

[rloew]

PROBLEMCHYLD, on 19 September 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

Analada, on 23 October 2007 - 02:30 AM, said:

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

dencorso, on 19 January 2010 - 11:39 AM, said:

I use the following values:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=4096
MaxFileCache=393216
ChunkSize=2048
NameCache=4096
DirectoryCache=96

Are there any objections in using these settings? I don't understand how there can so many different setting for 1GB of ram. There should only be one ultimate setting.

Not true.
The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.
For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.
If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

rloew, on 19 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Not true.
The optimum setting depends upon how you use your system and what Graphics Card(s) are present.
For general work, you want the highest setting that leaves room for all the DOS Boxes you might want.
If you do a lot of transfers to USB Keys or cards, you probably want a low setting.

I have been reading all of these 1GB+ topics and they all have me going in circles. The reason I asked because SP adds System.ini,386enh,,"MaxPhysPage=40000" and if there is no general/default setting, then it can be removed in the next release.