 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
>It must be extremely poor memory management if it requires a 200 meg overhead
>to operate in. The numbers are still not adding up even given what you and
Be aware that (as previously stated) each memory allocation (depending on the
compiler) can have a significant overhead. The memory has to be tracked by the
compiler's run time library, and POVRAY also adds an overhead.
FWIW, the overhead for POVWIN is about 20 bytes, plus that of the run-time
library (perhaps another 20 bytes?) Also don't forget that each object can use
multiple memory allocations, depending on what you do with them.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <379C255E.B4547297@pacbell.net>...
>
>
>This question pertains to the way Pov-Ray for windows reports peak memory.
>
> A scene I rendered this evening had 120k objects. I have 128 megs of
>physical ram memory and about 250 megs of swap space available. The
>128 megs of ram were consumed quickly and the swap file grew to nearly
>220 megs before it finaly finished parsing the file.
Since you are using Windows, at least 70 MB of memory or virtual memory is
in use by Windows. By default, Windows uses 16 MB of memory + 50% of all
memory over 16 MB.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
: Since you are using Windows, at least 70 MB of memory or virtual memory is
: in use by Windows. By default, Windows uses 16 MB of memory + 50% of all
: memory over 16 MB.
Why?
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <379ea269@news.povray.org>...
>Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>: Since you are using Windows, at least 70 MB of memory or virtual memory
is
>: in use by Windows. By default, Windows uses 16 MB of memory + 50% of all
>: memory over 16 MB.
>
> Why?
Disk cache. Run a big program and watch Windows put the disk cache into
virtual memory!
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
: Disk cache. Run a big program and watch Windows put the disk cache into
: virtual memory!
Why the disk cache should be dependant of the RAM size? I don't understand.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <379f0abd@news.povray.org>...
>Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>: Disk cache. Run a big program and watch Windows put the disk cache into
>: virtual memory!
>
> Why the disk cache should be dependant of the RAM size? I don't
understand.
Because that's the way Microsoft wrote it.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
:> Why the disk cache should be dependant of the RAM size? I don't
: understand.
: Because that's the way Microsoft wrote it.
I have always understood that the bigger the disk cache, the smaller the
benefits.
If you have 1 MB of disk cache, you will see a big increase in speed.
With 2 MB the speed will increase again, but it will not double. With
4 MB the speed increases a little, but it will be a lot less than 4 times
the speed of 1 MB. The more memory you use for disk caching, the smaller
will the speed/memory-relation be, because you don't get the same benefit
for each MB you add.
This means that the speed achieved with 40 MB will be aproximately the
same as with 42MB. So you wasted 2 MB for nothing.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote in message <379ff71b@news.povray.org>...
>Mark Wagner <mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>:> Why the disk cache should be dependant of the RAM size? I don't
>: understand.
>
>
>: Because that's the way Microsoft wrote it.
>
> I have always understood that the bigger the disk cache, the smaller the
>benefits.
> If you have 1 MB of disk cache, you will see a big increase in speed.
>With 2 MB the speed will increase again, but it will not double. With
>4 MB the speed increases a little, but it will be a lot less than 4 times
>the speed of 1 MB. The more memory you use for disk caching, the smaller
>will the speed/memory-relation be, because you don't get the same benefit
>for each MB you add.
> This means that the speed achieved with 40 MB will be aproximately the
>same as with 42MB. So you wasted 2 MB for nothing.
Try telling Microsoft that. As of Windoze 95, they hadn't learned such
basic engineering concepts as "fail-safe", so that when Win95 crashes on
shutdown (frequently and often), eventually things get messed up so badly
that Windoze must be reinstalled.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 04:17:05 -0400, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
>Disk cache. Run a big program and watch Windows put the disk cache into
>virtual memory!
>
>Mark
There's a $20 shareware proggie for windoze called MemTurbo. A 30-day
trial is available at TUCOWS. It does memory defrags & recovery as
well as controls the min and max cache size. So far I haven't seen any
problems with the trial version, but keep in mind:
a) The first time I ran the program it was able to free up 78 of the
96 MB physical RAM I have (by paging dlls and such to the hdd) when no
programs were running. Now, a typical value is 12-16 MB. Why? I don't
know. Actually, the system behaves better when having 16 MB of free
physical RAM than when having 75 (cause it still needs those dlls and
has to reload them on demand)
b) The cache tuning options are not available in the trial version, so
I can't report on that
c) Cache tuning does not work under NT
Just so that you know :)
Peter Popov
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote in message <37a020bf.17317772@204.213.191.228>...
>There's a $20 shareware proggie for windoze called MemTurbo. A 30-day
>trial is available at TUCOWS. It does memory defrags & recovery as
>well as controls the min and max cache size. So far I haven't seen any
>problems with the trial version, but keep in mind:
>
>a) The first time I ran the program it was able to free up 78 of the
>96 MB physical RAM I have (by paging dlls and such to the hdd) when no
>programs were running. Now, a typical value is 12-16 MB. Why? I don't
>know. Actually, the system behaves better when having 16 MB of free
>physical RAM than when having 75 (cause it still needs those dlls and
>has to reload them on demand)
>
>b) The cache tuning options are not available in the trial version, so
>I can't report on that
I use a postcardware program called "Cacheman" to adjust the disk cache size
on my computer. I have it set up so that no more than 20 MB is used for the
disk cache.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
