In article <3CCBE582.692A9517@gmx.de>, tim### [at] gmxde says...
> No no! I meant I have 512 MB RAM, and sometimes it
> seems that the disk is swapping although peak level
> is somewhat lower (I know that windows etc need
> RAM too, but I feel like there's some RAM unused
> while swapping).
> 
> But that's probably just Microsoft at work, not POV-Ray...
> 
Tim, maybe what you are looking for is this:

This is confirmed for Win98 BTW.
In your system.ini file, section
[386Enh]
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

Yes, Windows DOES lay heavily into disk swap when you still have heaps of 
unused physical RAM.  This parameter will set that straight.  Your swap 
file (and disk) will stay unused until you really do exhaust your RAM.

Cheers,
  Brian.
--

Post a reply to this message

Thank you! I added that line, supposing that thats what you
implied when stating "this parameter will set that straight".

This'll probably help a lot in other cases with swapping, too...

I'm happy now. :-)

Brian Elliott wrote:

> Tim, maybe what you are looking for is this:
>
> This is confirmed for Win98 BTW.
> In your system.ini file, section
> [386Enh]
> ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
>
> Yes, Windows DOES lay heavily into disk swap when you still have heaps of
> unused physical RAM.  This parameter will set that straight.  Your swap
> file (and disk) will stay unused until you really do exhaust your RAM.
>
> Cheers,
>   Brian.

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

Brian Elliott <bel### [at] gilcomau> wrote:
> In your system.ini file, section
> [386Enh]
> ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

  By the way, there's a tool which comes with windows which makes managing
(ie. disabling and enabling commands) and editing these system files really
easy. To run the program go to Start->Run and write "msconfig".
  I seldom praise Microsoft for anything, but here I must make an exception.
This program is just plain great.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

> But even when you say 56, I don't understand these days.. If you ever had
an
> Amiga computer, maybe you remember it's "windows-like" OS that ran on 512
> KB... And I don't see why todays Windows need SO much physical memory.. I
> really think Microsoft just expands memory because of some odd deal with
the
> RAM chip manufacturers.

In fact, the Amiga even had everything built-in so no extra ram on cards or
such!  And some Amigas could even do 24bit color at 640x400 on that.
(A1200)

My favorite reason for Micro-bloat is the method of "just keep adding
code... it will fix itself eventually.  "

N Shomber

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3ccda852@news.povray.org...
>
>   I seldom praise Microsoft for anything, but here I must make an exception.
> This program is just plain great.
>

... which is why they removed it from 2000?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> ... which is why they removed it from 2000?

  It was *too* good? ;)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

> ... which is why they removed it from 2000?


They did bring is back in XP Pro and Microsoft also created something very
useful called System Restore

N Shomber

Post a reply to this message

Hugo wrote in message <3ccd09e0@news.povray.org>...
>> You should have 56 MB left after Windows starts up.  Windows uses half
>your
>> available physical memory, plus an additional 8 MB.  Are you loading some
>
>> additional programs at startup?

>But even when you say 56, I don't understand these days.. If you ever had
an
>Amiga computer, maybe you remember it's "windows-like" OS that ran on 512
>KB... And I don't see why todays Windows need SO much physical memory.. I
>really think Microsoft just expands memory because of some odd deal with
the
>RAM chip manufacturers.


The "plus 8 MB" is for Windows itself.  The "half of all physical memory" is
for the disk cache, the font cache, the filename cache, the directory cache,
etc.  All these caches get moved out to virtual memory if you have a program
that needs a lot of memory.

--
Mark

The Universe is expanding.
The budget for its exploration is shrinking.

Post a reply to this message

In article <v2F### [at] econymdemoncouk>, mik### [at] nospamplease 
says...
> Wasn't it Tim Nikias who wrote:
> >No no! I meant I have 512 MB RAM, and sometimes it
> >seems that the disk is swapping although peak level
> >is somewhat lower (I know that windows etc need
> >RAM too, but I feel like there's some RAM unused
> >while swapping).
> 
> I've heard that Windows can sometimes be a little reluctant to release
> some of the memory it has grabbed for caching files. There are some
> freeware programs that can be used to persuade it to release the file
> cache when the memory is needed by other programs.
> 
> 

Hugo and Mark have made reference to how so much extra memory just gets 
gobbled up the instant you install another line of RAM.  I didn't realise 
it was actually one half of all RAM, but it figures with my empirical 
observations.

You have to really ask whether Windows is wasting your money by swiping 
128MB or 256MB of your RAM for caches.  These are PCs, not fileservers 
nor minicomputers!

Again for the Win98 users, you can set the cache to a size of your 
choosing.  (BTW I agree with Warp: MSConfig is a great utility for 
managing this stuff and what is autoloaded by your registry!)

Again in the system.ini file, put in some entries like this:

[vcache]
MinFileCache=16384
MaxFileCache=16384

If you don't have a [vcache] tag, place it after the [386Enh] section.  
You may choose other cache sizes, but they must be binary powers.  They 
are values in kBytes, so the above clamps your cache to 16MB, with no 
growth nor shrinkage.  I think that as single-user stations, few of us 
would find any real performance gain with a cache bigger than 32MB.

Cheers,
    Brian.
-- 
bel### [at] gilcomau

Post a reply to this message