Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra 256MB. I just have two questions: (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe Mode at all? <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912> "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine)." (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest MEB Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? NOTE: If the system has 700MB's of RAM or more installed the following line MUST be added to the [vcache] section of windows\system.ini file. MaxFileCache=512000 For more info see: Brian A. Sesko "Re: too much memory?" - this discussion group Sunday, May 11, 2008 05:21 AM http://groups.google.fr/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_thread/thread/63d498782ed72def and see: someone watching Sun, 11 May 2008 17:26:00 -0500 same discussion -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:rm9v541k9gap0aik0sbne4g0o6ef0kamjn@4ax.com... | I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. | | There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another | similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely | because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting | some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I | would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- | ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless | it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) | | In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), | and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). | | From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression | that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed | any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really | being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra | 256MB. | | I just have two questions: | | (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot | into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too | many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe | Mode at all? | | <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912> | | "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines | the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present | when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses | to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can | increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are | allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through | 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. | | On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can | be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the | system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for | other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new | virtual machine)." | | (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. | leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications | running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) | be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to | be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? | (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) | | -- | Angus Rodgers | (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) | Contains mild peril
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:30:35 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote: >NOTE: >If the system has 700MB's of RAM or more installed the following line MUST >be added to the [vcache] section of windows\system.ini file. > >MaxFileCache=512000 > >For more info see: >Brian A. Sesko >"Re: too much memory?" - this discussion group >Sunday, May 11, 2008 05:21 AM >http://groups.google.fr/group/microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion/browse_thread/thread/63d498782ed72def > >and see: >someone watching >Sun, 11 May 2008 17:26:00 -0500 >same discussion With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions. I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.) I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since 11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if it's really necessary.) Do you mean /exactly/ 700MB? Do you mean that the MaxFileCache value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of megabytes!)? If so, why? I was asking for information, not instructions without reasons attached. Your instructions seem too precise and insufficiently informative. -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest Ron Martell Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote: <snip> >In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), >and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). > I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= cached) after being loaded. If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to 512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. Hope this is of some assistance. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote: >[...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache >value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of >megabytes!)? <blush> Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value (which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not in the binary system)? -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest glee Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:rm9v541k9gap0aik0sbne4g0o6ef0kamjn@4ax.com... > I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. > > There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another > similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely > because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting > some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I > would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- > ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless > it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) > > In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), > and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). > > From what little I've read on the subject, I get the impression > that it will be OK to set MaxFileCache=327680 (320MB) (or indeed > any value up to 512MB) - the value of MinFileCache not really > being important at all - and then go ahead and install the extra > 256MB. > > I just have two questions: > > (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot > into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too > many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe > Mode at all? > > <http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q253912> > > "The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines > the maximum cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present > when Windows starts. Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses > to permit it to access a cache of the maximum size so that it can > increase the cache to that size if needed. These addresses are > allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC0000000 through > 0xFFFFFFFF (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can > be large enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the > system arena, leaving no virtual memory addresses available for > other functions such as opening an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new > virtual machine)." > > (2) If I set MaxFileCache to some value less than 256MB (e.g. > leaving it at its present value of 160MB), will applications > running under Win98SE (in normal mode, I mean, not Safe Mode) > be able to use the more than 512MB of RAM that would seem to > be available even when the cache is filled up to the maximum? > (If not, might I as well set MinFileCache to 256MB or more?) A agree with Ron Martell's reply wholeheartedly. Set the MaxFileCache to 512000 for best performance with that amount of RAM installed. Additionally, there is no need to have any MinFileCache entry in your case. I would remove the entire MinFileCache line from the .system.ini file. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote: >Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote: > ><snip> >>In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), >>and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). >> > > >I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your >computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used >for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as >needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes >at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= >cached) after being loaded. > >If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to >512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. >RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority >use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing >so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will >automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified >maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. > >Hope this is of some assistance. What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest glee Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:10:02 -0700, Ron Martell > <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Angus Rodgers <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote: >> >><snip> >>>In system.ini at the moment, I have MaxFileCache=163840 (160MB), >>>and (presumably much less important) MinFileCache=8192 (8MB). >>> >> >> >>I think you are unnecessarily limiting the overall performance of your >>computer by placing such a low limitation on the amount of memory used >>for caching files. The result is additional hard drive access as >>needed files are repeatedly reloaded from the hard drive, which takes >>at least 1,000 times as long as it would if they were retained (= >>cached) after being loaded. >> >>If this were my computer I would increase the MaxFileCache value to >>512000 so as to obtain the most effective use of the available RAM. >>RAM used for disk cache is always considered to be a lower priority >>use than RAM used for actual program execution or data file processing >>so if additional RAM is needed for these items the system will >>automatically reduce the disk cache size to less than the specified >>maximum so as to provide the needed RAM. >> >>Hope this is of some assistance. > > What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows > not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite > a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I > did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational > to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as > a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't > have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw > any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. > > As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache > value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm > really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good > policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what > I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: Memory Management in Win98 & ME http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: >"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... > >> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows >> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite >> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I >> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational >> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as >> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't >> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw >> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. >> >> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache >> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm >> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good >> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what >> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). > >I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: > >Memory Management in Win98 & ME >http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn’t. It would be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!" That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which has still not been answered. -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest MEB Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? The number comes from both users and Microsoft via their testing. Seems the system sweet spot or what it can readily handled in the *most* number of motherboards/BIOS/chipsets and with a *normal* load of applications, devices and other, vying for addressing/resource use.. experimentation is always in order. Here's another setting that ALWAYS brought wrath from the MVPs when I used to present it here: system.ini [386Enh] ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 Above works for some, others complain... As for your Safe Mode question: if your Normal Start can handle the memory, Safe Mode has no difficulty [at least in all the testing I have done]. Safe Mode isn't {by default} going to run any of the devices/drivers that might take up or conflict with addressing. Everything is limited, in compatibility mode, or disabled. Here's some personal test results for sweet spot memory: Super Socket 7 = 128 - *256 megs Slot 1 and Socket 370 = *384 megs Newer depends more on motherboard, chipset, and memory manufacturer {FSB, RAS/CAS, which VIA or Intel set, etc} from 384 to 768 megs. Results obtained when tested with Office and various games using several different video cards and processors {over-clocked and not}. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:c8tv541v7lbjba7vcldv5il3o7h1553p6u@4ax.com... | On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:08:24 +0100, I hastily wrote: | | >[...] Do you mean that the MaxFileCache | >value must be /exactly/ 512000 (not even an integral number of | >megabytes!)? | | <blush> | | Actually, it's exactly 500MB! But again, why this exact value | (which is a round-looking number in the decimal system but not | in the binary system)? | | -- | Angus Rodgers | (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) | Contains mild peril
Guest glee Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee" > <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: > >>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... >> >>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows >>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite >>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I >>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational >>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as >>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't >>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw >>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. >>> >>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache >>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm >>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good >>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what >>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). >> >>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: >> >>Memory Management in Win98 & ME >>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm > > I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: > > "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, > then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in > Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file > to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would > be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive > code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used > (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!" > > That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing > MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). > > Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty > much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my > main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which > has still not been answered. The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode: How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051 "In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?" http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm Understanding Safe Mode http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm Got Google? Use it..... -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Etal Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Angus Rodgers wrote: > I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. > > There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another > similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely > because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting > some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I > would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- > ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless > it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) > Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. From the Manual : Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. -- Nah-ah. I'm staying out of this. ... Now, here's my opinion. Please followup in the newsgroup. E-mail address is invalid due to spam-control.
Guest PCR Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Angus Rodgers wrote: | On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee" | <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: | |>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message |>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... |> |>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that |>> Windows not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts |>> to show quite a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the |>> exact figures, but I did a few informal experiments.) On the face |>> of it, it seems irrational to have a large quantity of disk data |>> cached in RAM at the same time as a large quantity of RAM data is |>> being paged out to disk! But I don't have a clear enough mental |>> model of how Win98SE handles things to draw any firm conclusion |>> from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. |>> |>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache |>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when |>> I'm really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this |>> is a good policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I |>> understand what I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). |> |>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: |> |>Memory Management in Win98 & ME |>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm | | I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: | | "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, | then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in | Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file | to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn’t. It would | be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive | code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being | used (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another | story!" | | That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider | increasing MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). | | Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty | much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my | main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which | has still not been answered. Going by the following article, which Bill Starbuck once posted (it's in my Keepers), only part of System.ini is effectively bypassed. The [vcache] section that contains that MaxFileCache is not specifically said to be bypassed... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051/EN-US/ How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start ........Quote........... 3. Windows 95 now uses the original registry settings and System.ini and Win.ini files. This effectively bypasses the [boot] and [386Enh] sections of the System.ini file and disables all the Windows 95 protected-mode devices listed in Device Manager. Also, Windows 95 does not run programs listed on the "Load=" and "Run=" lines in the [Windows] section of the Win.ini file. Note that although the [boot] section of the System.ini file is bypassed, the "shell=" and "drivers=" lines in the [boot] section are processed. ........EOQ............. HOWEVER, I really can't say for sure this provides a definitive answer. | -- | Angus Rodgers | (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) | Contains mild peril -- Thanks or Good Luck, There may be humor in this post, and, Naturally, you will not sue, Should things get worse after this, PCR pcrrcp@netzero.net
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:28:55 -0400, "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: >"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com... >> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee" >> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: >> >>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... >>> >>>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that Windows >>>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show quite >>>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but I >>>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems irrational >>>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time as >>>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't >>>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw >>>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me uneasy. >>>> >>>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache >>>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm >>>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a good >>>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand what >>>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). >>> >>>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: >>> >>>Memory Management in Win98 & ME >>>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm >> >> I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: >> >> "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, >> then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in >> Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file >> to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would >> be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive >> code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used >> (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!" >> >> That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing >> MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). >> >> Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty >> much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my >> main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which >> has still not been answered. > >The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode: > >How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start >http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051 > >"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?" >http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm > >Understanding Safe Mode >http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm > >Got Google? Use it..... No need to be offensive. I already said I'm no expert; and in one of the threads in this NG which I read on this topic, somebody said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, and as this seemed to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) I already knew, I didn't bother to check further (although there was a small sense of guilt and unease in my mind about not having done so - so you're not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first post, I did take care to state my assumption explicitly, so that it could be challenged if false. Anyway, thanks for the references. (This is an informative, helpful and low-noise newsgroup. In saying that my question had not been answered, I was not being pushy, merely stating a fact.) -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: >> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >> >> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >> > >Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. > > From the Manual : >Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest Ingeborg Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Angus Rodgers wrote: > > I just have two questions: > > (1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot > into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too > many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe > Mode at all? > You can find a lot of useful information in this thread: <http://www.msfn.org/board/Help-I-need-to-Get-2GB-installed-RAM-wo-t109574.html>
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly remember and write down? What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have to post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide suggestions, discuss the issue, etc. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:41f164ts0katuu497lg5aprh4558bv9dti@4ax.com... > On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:28:55 -0400, "glee" > <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: > >>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>news:5pd064hk8v93s1oh5f69dj61e8hun1m710@4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:04:56 -0400, "glee" >>> <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >>>>news:9utv54pu4nh0j0m2q10kc1ha2naqqil1s4@4ax.com... >>>> >>>>> What worries me about using a larger MaxFileCache value is that >>>>> Windows >>>>> not only keeps a large swapfile, but System Monitor starts to show >>>>> quite >>>>> a large value for "Swapfile in use". (I forget the exact figures, but >>>>> I >>>>> did a few informal experiments.) On the face of it, it seems >>>>> irrational >>>>> to have a large quantity of disk data cached in RAM at the same time >>>>> as >>>>> a large quantity of RAM data is being paged out to disk! But I don't >>>>> have a clear enough mental model of how Win98SE handles things to draw >>>>> any firm conclusion from such a vague argument; it just makes me >>>>> uneasy. >>>>> >>>>> As a result of this uneasiness, I have been keeping the MaxFileCache >>>>> value low enough that "Swapfile in use" shows as zero except when I'm >>>>> really stressing the system. But I'm not convinced that this is a >>>>> good >>>>> policy, and I'm quite willing to change it (so long as I understand >>>>> what >>>>> I'm doing, better than I do at the moment!). >>>> >>>>I suggest you carefully read here for a better understanding: >>>> >>>>Memory Management in Win98 & ME >>>>http://aumha.org/win4/a/memmgmt.htm >>> >>> I thought I had read it already, but I had missed this paragraph: >>> >>> "If code or data were stored in VCache only for caching purposes, >>> then it should be emptied out before the swap file is used; but in >>> Win98/ME, VCache often will stay quite large, forcing the swap file >>> to be used more. Is this another memory leak? No, it isn't. It would >>> be a memory leak if the contents of VCache were only stored, inactive >>> code or data. But if the contents are code or data currently being used >>> (as it commonly will be in Win98/ME), we have quite another story!" >>> >>> That reassures me somewhat. I'll mull it over, and consider increasing >>> MaxFileCache (and deleting MinFileCache altogether). >>> >>> Assuming this is OK, it makes my second question (in the OP) pretty >>> much irrelevant (but still of some academic interest). However, my >>> main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which >>> has still not been answered. >> >>The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode: >> >>How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051 >> >>"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?" >>http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm >> >>Understanding Safe Mode >>http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm >> >>Got Google? Use it..... > > No need to be offensive. I already said I'm no expert; and in one > of the threads in this NG which I read on this topic, somebody > said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, and as this seemed > to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) I already knew, I > didn't bother to check further (although there was a small sense > of guilt and unease in my mind about not having done so - so you're > not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first post, I did take care > to state my assumption explicitly, so that it could be challenged > if false. > > Anyway, thanks for the references. (This is an informative, helpful > and low-noise newsgroup. In saying that my question had not been > answered, I was not being pushy, merely stating a fact.) > > -- > Angus Rodgers > (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) > Contains mild peril
Guest Angus Rodgers Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote: >It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of >Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that >will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly remember >and write down? > >What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a >few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have to >post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a >better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide >suggestions, discuss the issue, etc. I thought what I wrote was quite clear; if it isn't, I don't know how to make it any clearer. I don't know what I've run into here, but it would seem to be futile to argue about it. /Of course/ I'm not disputing that the references provided were helpful (I've just got back from a day away, and haven't had time to follow them up yet, but I have no reason to doubt that they will answer my questions), and indeed I have already thanked the poster for providing them. If it helps. I'll just repeat the most relevant part of what I wrote: "[...] in one of the threads in this NG which I read on this topic, somebody said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, and as this seemed to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) I already knew, I didn't bother to check further (although there was a small sense of guilt and unease in my mind about not having done so - so you're not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first post, I did take care to state my assumption explicitly, so that it could be challenged if false." And from another post: "With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions. I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.) I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since 11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if it's really necessary.)" Perhaps you can point out whatever flaw it is in my use of English which causes you to imagine that I never do any research before asking questions, or that I have never thought of using Google, or that I imagine I don't make mistakes, or that I can't learn from what I'm told by people who are better informed than myself. I find your reply offensive, in exactly the same way as I was offended by glee's unnecessary "Got Google? Use it....." jibe. Is that any clearer? Now would you like to explain to me in what way I have been offensive to anyone in this newsgroup, to justify these two insulting responses I have received? -- Angus Rodgers (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) Contains mild peril
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "However, my main worry was the first question - the one about Safe Mode - which has still not been answered." "(1) As I gather that system.ini is not processed when you boot into Safe Mode, does this mean that Windows will reserve too many memory addresses for VCache to be able to boot into Safe Mode at all?" This tells you right out front that what you "gathered" is wrong. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=system.ini+%22safe+mode%22 All Brian did was suggest Google, which you did NOT mention. You said you did your homework, but major chunks of that homework resulted in wrong info. Below, you ADMIT that you didn't do your due diligence. All I did was ask you just what you found offensive about Brian's post. It would appear that you took offense at the wording Brian used, which was both a play on American advertising and, yes, a reminder that Google is your friend. All I did in my second paragraph was to explain WHY we suggest Google before posting. It wasn't intended to chide you personally. It offends ME me that you obviously DON'T know that much about the subject, yet you argued with practically everyone who took the time to correct your mistaken ideas. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:eah264dkvmv9qtqb28m3tva09qqp9mej7r@4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:34:06 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote: > >>It's offensive to correct a mistake? It's offensive to suggest the use of >>Google? What was offensive about that post? Posting the three links that >>will tell you more about Safe Mode than anybody here could possibly >>remember >>and write down? >> >>What was offensive about that post? All it suggests is that if you'd do a >>few minutes research before posting an issue that you, 1. Might not have >>to >>post here, after reading up on the topic, or 2. You'll at least have a >>better understanding of what we're trying to get across when we do provide >>suggestions, discuss the issue, etc. > > I thought what I wrote was quite clear; if it isn't, I don't know > how to make it any clearer. I don't know what I've run into here, > but it would seem to be futile to argue about it. /Of course/ I'm > not disputing that the references provided were helpful (I've just > got back from a day away, and haven't had time to follow them up yet, > but I have no reason to doubt that they will answer my questions), > and indeed I have already thanked the poster for providing them. > > If it helps. I'll just repeat the most relevant part of what I > wrote: > > "[...] in one of the threads in this NG which I read on this > topic, somebody said that system.ini was not read in Safe Mode, > and as this seemed to make sense, and it chimed with what (little) > I already knew, I didn't bother to check further (although there > was a small sense of guilt and unease in my mind about not having > done so - so you're not entirely wrong to chide me). In my first > post, I did take care to state my assumption explicitly, so that > it could be challenged if false." > > And from another post: > > "With respect, I did do some homework before asking my questions. > I'm sorry if I didn't do enough, but it's not clear to me where > to look next. (I'm a reasonably experienced Win9x user, but by > no stretch of the imagination am I an expert.) > > I had already read the thread you've referred me to, as well as > every other relevant thread I could find in the newsgroup since > 11 Sep 2007. (Of course I can Google further back than that, if > it's really necessary.)" > > Perhaps you can point out whatever flaw it is in my use of English > which causes you to imagine that I never do any research before > asking questions, or that I have never thought of using Google, > or that I imagine I don't make mistakes, or that I can't learn > from what I'm told by people who are better informed than myself. > > I find your reply offensive, in exactly the same way as I was > offended by glee's unnecessary "Got Google? Use it....." jibe. > > Is that any clearer? > > Now would you like to explain to me in what way I have been > offensive to anyone in this newsgroup, to justify these two > insulting responses I have received? > > -- > Angus Rodgers > (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) > Contains mild peril
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? If your mobo only has three slots, it can only hold three banks of memory, max. The reference to four banks of 2700 is probably a generic datum that applies to the chipset (which COULD have four slots), but not to your specific board which only has three. Note that a bank of memory does not equate to a stick. Especially in more modern boards, two sticks in two slots acting as a single bank of memory. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal > <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: > >>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >>> >>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >>> >> >>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. >> >> From the Manual : >>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. > > The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though > PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, > but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't > time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - > just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about > is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly > seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would > be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two > "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably > find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. > > -- > Angus Rodgers > (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@) > Contains mild peril
Guest glee Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:41f164ts0katuu497lg5aprh4558bv9dti@4ax.com... >>glee wrote: >>The system.ini file IS processed in Safe Mode: >> >>How Windows 95 Performs a Safe-Mode Start >>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/122051 >> >>"In Windows, what is 'Safe Mode' used for and why?" >>http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question575.htm >> >>Understanding Safe Mode >>http://www.windowsgalore.com/windows.95/safemode.htm >> >>Got Google? Use it..... > > No need to be offensive. <snip> Not trying to be offensive. If you're not familiar with US TV ads, you probably didn't catch the attempted humour there. Got milk? That said, it IS something easy to search with Google, which would have remedied your mistaken assumption. I think it took me about a minute to find the three references and copy/paste them. ;-) Please note I am making a generic statement below about posters in general, not a reference to you, so don't take any offense again: Those of us who have been helping in these forums, for probably 10 years now, do get tired sometimes of having to do basic research for posters, who could have found their answers with a Google search in a couple of minutes. So we will sometimes answer with something like: "Google: Safe Mode and System.ini" Here I thought I was being nice by posting the reference links! ;-) I probably should have included a smiley or two, as I did above, to indicate the tenor of the comments. I hope that clears up that misunderstanding..... -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest glee Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com... > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal > <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: > >>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >>> >>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >>> >> >>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. >> >> From the Manual : >>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. > > The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though > PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, > but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't > time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - > just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about > is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly > seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would > be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two > "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably > find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. The info in the thread I link below (along with the mobo manual and Asus FAQs) should help you understand what is menat by a "bank" on that motherboard, and the differing types of RAM sticks (single-sided; double-sided): Computing.Net - ASUS A7V8X-X RAM slot issues http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/asus-a7v8xx-ram-slot-issues/13751.html (I googled: ASUS A7V8X-X manual, and that was the first hit). -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Leave it to Asus. I guess it can have up to three single-sided 2700, or one or two sticks of 3200, max. Note that mixing the types results in them all running at whatever speed is the slowest. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:ebuB3nl1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message > news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal >> <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >>>> >>>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >>>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >>>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >>>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >>>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >>>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >>>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >>>> >>> >>>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >>>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >>>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. >>> >>> From the Manual : >>>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. >> >> The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though >> PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, >> but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't >> time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - >> just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about >> is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly >> seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would >> be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two >> "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably >> find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. > > The info in the thread I link below (along with the mobo manual and Asus > FAQs) should help you understand what is menat by a "bank" on that > motherboard, and the differing types of RAM sticks (single-sided; > double-sided): > Computing.Net - ASUS A7V8X-X RAM slot issues > http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/asus-a7v8xx-ram-slot-issues/13751.html > > (I googled: ASUS A7V8X-X manual, and that was the first hit). > -- > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ > http://dts-l.net/ > http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm >
Guest glee Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Look at the "Manufacturer specs" here: http://www.crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=A7V8X-X ASUS certainly makes it far more confusing than any of the mobo brands I have used. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:u0mRw2l1IHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Leave it to Asus. I guess it can have up to three single-sided 2700, or one or two > sticks of 3200, max. Note that mixing the types results in them all running at > whatever speed is the slowest. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message > news:ebuB3nl1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >> news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal >>> <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >>>>> >>>>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >>>>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >>>>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >>>>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >>>>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >>>>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >>>>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >>>>> >>>> >>>>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >>>>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >>>>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. >>>> >>>> From the Manual : >>>>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. >>> >>> The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though >>> PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, >>> but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't >>> time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - >>> just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about >>> is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly >>> seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would >>> be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two >>> "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably >>> find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. >> >> The info in the thread I link below (along with the mobo manual and Asus FAQs) >> should help you understand what is menat by a "bank" on that motherboard, and the >> differing types of RAM sticks (single-sided; double-sided): >> Computing.Net - ASUS A7V8X-X RAM slot issues >> http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/asus-a7v8xx-ram-slot-issues/13751.html >> >> (I googled: ASUS A7V8X-X manual, and that was the first hit). >> -- >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ >> http://dts-l.net/ >> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm >> > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Will 768MB RAM be OK, even in Safe Mode? Wrong again. I had dual-channel memory on my mind. Here's more info: http://crucial.com/store/listparts.aspx?model=A7V8X Interesting little FAQ section. Still, I don't see where they label the sticks single- or double-sided. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:u0mRw2l1IHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Leave it to Asus. I guess it can have up to three single-sided 2700, or > one or two sticks of 3200, max. Note that mixing the types results in them > all running at whatever speed is the slowest. > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message > news:ebuB3nl1IHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Angus Rodgers" <twirlip@bigfoot.com> wrote in message >> news:jtf1641epqchmaqlc66844dkphr5sf93b1@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:44:25 +0200, Etal >>> <look@sig.bcause.this.is.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> I've recently doubled my system RAM to 512MB, with no problems. >>>>> >>>>> There's room on my motherboard (ASUS A7V8X-X) to plug in another >>>>> similar 256MB module. (I don't think I want to add 512MB merely >>>>> because it might be useful when/if I get around to dual-booting >>>>> some version of Linux. A total of 768MB ought to be enough. I >>>>> would rather not have to fiddle with MaxPhysPage=39999 - or what- >>>>> ever else would be needed if I had 1GB or more memory - unless >>>>> it is absolutely necessary, in which case I will think again.) >>>>> >>>> >>>>Not only the amount of RAM matters, but also its speed. Occupying >>>>all three DIMM sockets may lower the the maximum memory-speed >>>>usable, depending on what DIMM cards you have. >>>> >>>> From the Manual : >>>>Note: PC2700 maximum to 4 banks only. PC3200 maximum to 2 banks only. >>> >>> The existing DIMM was PC2700, so I ordered another PC2700, even though >>> PC3200 was also available. I don't understand the technical issues, >>> but this seemed the course least likely to cause problems. I haven't >>> time to look further into it at the moment (late for an appointment - >>> just reading and replying quickly!), but one thing I'm not clear about >>> is what a "bank" is. As there are only 3 slots for DIMMS, it hardly >>> seems likely that one DIMM equals one "bank" (otherwise 4 banks would >>> be impossible!). It's logically possible that each of my DIMMs is two >>> "banks", so there might not be room for any more! But I can probably >>> find this out for myself without having to ask too many questions here. >> >> The info in the thread I link below (along with the mobo manual and Asus >> FAQs) should help you understand what is menat by a "bank" on that >> motherboard, and the differing types of RAM sticks (single-sided; >> double-sided): >> Computing.Net - ASUS A7V8X-X RAM slot issues >> http://www.computing.net/answers/cpus/asus-a7v8xx-ram-slot-issues/13751.html >> >> (I googled: ASUS A7V8X-X manual, and that was the first hit). >> -- >> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ >> http://dts-l.net/ >> http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm >> > >
Recommended Posts