[rloew]

I have run some tests on RAMDISKs and XMSDSK in particular.

Conventional RAMDISKs use XMS memory, displacing Windows from said memory.

Windows 98SE maps this memory into the System Arena in the last GB of Virtual memory. This memory is also used for File Caching and VMs.

The larger the RAMDISK, the less File Cache is available. Looking at the list Dencorso assembled, you can see that the people who used a large XMSDSK in their setup ended up with a much lower setting for MaxFileCache. This limits RAMDISKs to not much more than 512MB so they can't be used to support 2GB of RAM without using MaxPhysPage. Some people have had problems relying on MaxPhysPage to limit memory.

XMSDSK has a bug in it that makes it work improperly above 2GB of RAM when the /T option is used.

I am working on RAMDISKs that don't use XMS Memory. One should be able to use the 64-Bit Memory in AMD Computers having 4GB or more RAM.

This post has been edited by rloew: 09 June 2008 - 01:57 PM

[dencorso]

@RLoew: It is reassuring to see that your tests support my conclusions (in posts #21 and #25, here: link) from my own tests and also from those reported by diskless (link) on where Windows maps the memory it doesn't control and the consequences this has.

This amounts to stating that 1.5 GiB is about the maximum RAM that can be used fully by Win 98SE (without the RAM Limitation Patch) plus XMSDSK: 1158 MiB or a little less to VMM and 378 MiB or a little more to XMSDSK, because much more will leave no space for the File Cache and any DOS Boxes. It should be added that, all other things remaining the same, it is also a good idea to use HIMEMX.EXE instead of HIMEM.SYS, because this allows for more DOS Boxes (as found out by xRayeR and confirmed by vick1111, see posts #70-#82, here: link), for reasons that are still not totally clear.

Win ME probably can do better, in this respect, since it is able to detect about 2 GiB, so probably it may also accept a 512 MiB XMSDSK, to attain about 2.5 GiB of fully used RAM...

Of course, the list in post #1 of this thread shows clearly that to run Win 98Se with lots of RAM, with part of it unused, perhaps for a multibooting machine, not only is possible, but is actually being done in a day-to-day basis by some of us.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:38 PM

[rloew]

I have completed work on a 64-Bit RAMDISK as well as a 32-Bit RAMDISK, neither of which use XMS Memory.
Since Windows does not know this memory exists, it doesn't manage it or allocate precious System Arena space for it.
I have been able to create and use 2GB RAMDISKs without problems.

I haven't as yet determined the difference in behavior between HIMEM.SYS and HIMEMX.SYS, there isn't anything obvious in the source code for HIMEMX.

[rloew]

I have done some further research on HIMEMX.

HIMEM is recognized by Windows during Windows Startup, so it is hooked, letting Windows take over management of all XMS calls. Any XMS Memory that was
allocated before Windows Startup is not included in available Memory for Windows but is mapped into the System Arena so Windows can support the Programs
and Drivers that reserved the Memory. Since most RAMDISKs use XMS Memory, they tie up System Arena space. This is why a large XMS based RAMDISK
cannot be used because the System Arena runs out of space.

HIMEMX is not recognized by Windows so calls to it are executed in Virtual Mode. HIMEMX uses the BIOS Interrupt 15 call to manipulate Extended Memory.
Windows hooks this Interrupt so it can manage the Memory. Windows uses the standard XMS calls to take over the Free Memory during Startup. The difference
is that Windows does not know about XMS Memory that was Allocated before Startup so it doesn't reserve space in the System Arena for it. This is why there
seems to be more space for DOS Boxes etc. The problem is that actually using this Memory invokes the Interrupt 15 call which then causes Windows to allocate
Pages to the System Arena to manage it. Reading or Writing a Large RAMDISK quickly fills up the System Arena and leads to a crash.

You can setup a large XMS RAMDISK using HIMEMX but your system will crash if you try to fill it up.

I also observed a problem combining HIMEMX with EMM386 whenever exceeding approximately 1408MB. EMM386 appears to allocate all of the XMS memory and
then release what it doesn't need. Above 1408MB EMM386 does not release approximately twice the amount of Memory above 1408MB, so the available memory
actually decreases as the total amount of RAM increases.

This post has been edited by rloew: 21 June 2008 - 10:51 PM

[dencorso]

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #1:

Q125691 (more info on Win9x/ME memory management)
xRayeR's IO.SYS patch for accessing Safe Mode (info and download link)

on post #2:

RetroOS's new system configuration

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 26 February 2009 - 04:19 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on May 25 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

As of May 25, 2008, there are 16 machines, owned by 11 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

MatureTech's system has been added.

Hence, now:

dencorso, on May 25 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

As of Aug 19, 2008, there are 17 machines, owned by 12 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:28 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on May 25 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

As of Aug 19, 2008, there are 17 machines, owned by 12 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

rldelrosario's system has been added.

Hence, now:

dencorso, on Nov 03 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

As of Nov 03, 2008, there are 18 machines, owned by 13 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:28 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on Nov 03 2008, 10:30 PM, said:

As of Nov 03, 2008, there are 18 machines, owned by 13 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

Lecco's system has been added.

Hence, now:

dencorso, on Nov 09 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

As of Nov 09, 2008, there are 19 machines, owned by 14 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:29 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on Nov 09 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

As of Nov 09, 2008, there are 19 machines, owned by 14 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

Dave-H's system has been added.

Hence, now:

dencorso, on Nov 24 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

As of Nov 24, 2008, there are 20 machines, owned by 15 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Also my system's new configuration has been added, instead of simply updated, because it's very different from the original one. I shall comment more about it asap, on a forthcoming post.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:29 PM

[dencorso]

dencorso, on Nov 24 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

As of Nov 24, 2008, there are 20 machines, owned by 15 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

submix8c's system has been added.

Hence, now:

dencorso, on May 25 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

As of Dec 26, 2008, there are 21 machines, owned by 16 members, running Win 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:29 PM

[dencorso]

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #1:

link to cannie's Tutorial thread

attachment: Hard-to-find MS info on the maximum number of DOS boxes available to Win 98
It was released at beta stage, but remains true for Win 98 (FE and SE) and also for Win ME.

on post #2:

my own new system (II) configuration

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 26 February 2009 - 04:18 PM

[dencorso]

I've been doing some tests with RLoew's non-XMS RAMDSK32... Here are the results:

Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. RLoew's software-only non-XMS RAMDSK32

GB i-RAM 1.5GiB (Win 98 SE) FAT-32
------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read * : 122.1 MB/s
Sequential Write * : 120.4 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 115.1 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 119.4 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 44.3 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 41.0 MB/s

*Test Size : 100 MB
Obs: The GB i-RAM is a SATA-I device, so its theoretic
maximum allowable data transfer is 150.0 MB/s...

=====================================

RLoew's RAMDSK32 1.5GiB (Win 98 SE) FAT-16
------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read * : 275.7 MB/s
Sequential Write * : 180.2 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 269.6 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 82.5 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 248.9 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 41.0 MB/s

*Test Size : 100 MB
Obs: using the SYSENTER Method.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 05 March 2009 - 07:31 PM

[dencorso]

Now, to provide a comparison with another very reliable software ramdisk (this one works only under the Win NT family OSes) here are some more results:

Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. Gavotte's software-only NT-only RRAMDISK

GB i-RAM 1.5GiB (Win XP SP3) FAT-32
------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read * : 132.9 MB/s
Sequential Write * : 126.2 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 132.9 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 125.8 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 58.6 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 51.7 MB/s

*Test Size : 100 MB
Obs: The GB i-RAM is a SATA-I device, so its theoretic
maximum allowable data transfer is 150.0 MB/s...

=====================================

Gavotte's RRAMDISK 1.5GiB (Win XP SP3) FAT-32
------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 2.2 © 2007-2008 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sequential Read * : 308.4 MB/s
Sequential Write * : 315.6 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 270.7 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 276.1 MB/s
Random Read 4KB : 36.1 MB/s
Random Write 4KB : 34.9 MB/s

*Test Size : 100 MB
Obs: 1)Gavotte's RRAMDISK.SYS is a WDM device that
only exists after Win XP has fully initialized.
2) RRAMDISK.SYS v. 1.0.4096.5_200811130 was used for this test.

This post has been edited by dencorso: 05 March 2009 - 07:31 PM

[dencorso]

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:


RLoew's seventh machine has been added (and it has 8 GiB and a triple-core CPU!!!)

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:30 PM

[Dave-H]

dencorso, on Mar 1 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

RLoew's seventh machine has been added (and it has 8 GiB and a triple-core CPU!!!)

Now that's just showing off!

[rloew]

Dave-H, on Mar 1 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

dencorso, on Mar 1 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

RLoew's seventh machine has been added (and it has 8 GiB and a triple-core CPU!!!)

Now that's just showing off!

Not until I figure out how to use all the cores in the Triple Core in Windows 9X.

[eidenk]

rloew, on Mar 1 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Dave-H, on Mar 1 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

dencorso, on Mar 1 2009, 07:09 AM, said:

RLoew's seventh machine has been added (and it has 8 GiB and a triple-core CPU!!!)

Now that's just showing off!

Not until I figure out how to use all the cores in the Triple Core in Windows 9X.

That's very interesting to hear.

Any news on the resource expander front btw ?

[Dave-H]

rloew, on Mar 1 2009, 05:16 PM, said:

Not until I figure out how to use all the cores in the Triple Core in Windows 9X.

Perhaps then I can get Windows 98 to recognise both of my two physical processors too!

[dencorso]

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #1:

a link to my recent ramdisk performance tests has been added. In case you're intersted here are direct links to them:
in post #27 is Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. RLoew's software-only non-XMS RAMDSK32, and
in post #28 is Gigabyte i-RAM hardware ramdisk vs. Gavotte's software-only NT-only RRAMDISK.
OK, Gavotte's RRAMDISK runs only on NT-family OSes, so it doesn't relate directly to Win 9x/ME... but since the Gigabyte i-RAM is a hardware designed to look like just another SATA HDD from the OS point-of-view, I can compare
RLoew's RAMDSK32 with the GB i-RAM directly under Win 98SE and can also compare directly Gavotte's RRAMDISK with the GB i-RAM directly under Win XP SP3, and so provide indirect, but correct, comparison between two ramdisks that exist exclusively under each different Windows OS family.

on post #2:

RetroOS's system has been updated.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!

This post has been edited by dencorso: 10 February 2010 - 09:31 PM

[dencorso]

This topic has been updated!

What's New?

on post #2:

geoc's system has been added.

Let's keep the list up-to-date:
If you are using 9x/ME with more than 1 GiB RAM, do PM me your info and you shall be added to the list!