system rsources dwindling

[extremnod]

Thanks for all the suggestions......Seems like I have my work cut out for me when I get home.....If you don't hear from me...,,,,I did something wrong......lol...........

[Train]

I set minimum to 150MB for 384MB ram and I let windows set the max. Fastest setting for when I use my 3D rendering program.
I also use VV's PowerfulPC which I post here with WhitPhil's explaination.

Had this sent to me. VV posted this in the old vdr and was lost..

vv
Member
Posts: 7108
From:
Registered: SEP 99
posted 06-05-2000 02:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tip was originally only one of many in a thread I posted last year. A little more detail is included in this version
Many of you are aware that performance can be increased by changing the typical role of the machine from Desktop Computer to Network Server in Control Panel>System>Performance>File System>Hard Disk>Typical Role of this Machine. Powerful Pc sets the name cache at 4000 files and the Directory cache/Path cache at 128 directories.

To setup this tip, you can either enter the info manually, or create a regfile which can be saved and reused after each 9x reinstall.

1. open notepad and save a new file as Powerful.reg. [When you are in the save as window, type powerful.reg in the "filename" rectangle, and change to "all files" in the "save as type" rectangle.]

2. Copy the info between dotted lines below (starting with Regedit4)and paste it to your file.

3. Close your file and double-click on it.

4. Go to Control Panel>System>
Performance>File System>Hard Disk>Typical Role and select Powerful Pc. Reboot.

- - - -
REGEDIT4

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS Templates\Powerful]
@="Powerful PC"
"NameCache"=hex:a0,0f,00,00
"PathCache"=hex:80,00,00,00
- - - -


[This message has been edited by vv (edited 06-16-2000).]


To which WhitPhil posted this:
WhitPhil
Member
Posts: 4278
From: Whitby, Ontario, Canada
Registered: OCT 99
posted 06-06-2000 03:18 PM
------------------------------------------------------------
Typical Role Defaults

Desktop - 32 Folders, 677 files, uses about 10K memory
Mobile - 16 folders, 337 files, uses about 5K
Server - 64 folders, 2729 files, uses about 40K
PowerPC - 128 folders, 4000 files, uses about 60K(extrapolated)

To translate the NameCache string to a decimal number, you reverse the string of bytes and then translate it from hex to decimal.

Eg:
Mobile:51 01 00 00 reversed is 00 00 01 51 and 0151 in hex is 337
Server:A9 0A 00 00 reversed is 00 00 0A A9 and AA9 in hex is 2729

Thus
Powerful PC is A0 0F 00 00 reversed is 00 00 0F A0 and FA0 in hex is 4000

Similarly for Pathcache:
40 00 00 00 reversed: 00 00 00 40 is hex for 64
80 00 00 00 reversed: 00 00 00 80 is hex for 128

Definitions from MS TechNet

PathCache specifies the size of the cache that the virtual file allocation table (VFAT) can use to save the locations of the most recently accessed directory paths. This cache improves performance by reducing the number of times the file system must seek paths by searching the file allocation table.

NameCache stores the locations of the most recently accessed file names.

The combined use of PathCache and NameCache means that VFAT never searches the disk for the location of cached file names.

Both PathCache and NameCache use memory out of the general system heap.

Note the last sentence. This is from TechNet and indicates that these caches are part of the infamous "resources". As an FYI, I tried both server and powerful pc and saw no differnce in percentage after booting. But what I couldn't determine was whether they were immediately allocated or whether they grew over time to those maximums.


[This message has been edited by WhitPhil (edited 06-06-2000).]

[WhitPhil]

Just my (late) 2 cents worth.

Making changes to VM and typical role will have absolutely no affect on system resources.
As well, Buffalo is correct in that the 2.5 "rule" does not apply, and really never was a good rule to start with.
And Murf is correct in that a MAX should never be applied to the VM settings. There is nothing to be gained by setting a MAX. Using Sysmon to monitor swapfile size can be used to choose a good setting for the MIN. Then, by deleting the existing swapfile and rebooting, a contiguous file is created that can grow larger if required, and should never need resizing.

[Techtips]

Originally posted by WhitPhil
Just my (late) 2 cents worth.

Making changes to VM and typical role will have absolutely no affect on system resources.
As well, Buffalo is correct in that the 2.5 "rule" does not apply, and really never was a good rule to start with.
And Murf is correct in that a MAX should never be applied to the VM settings. There is nothing to be gained by setting a MAX. Using Sysmon to monitor swapfile size can be used to choose a good setting for the MIN. Then, by deleting the existing swapfile and rebooting, a contiguous file is created that can grow larger if required, and should never need resizing.

After checking some other site I see you right about the 2.5 Rule.

IT was meant for smaller RAM size of 64MB and less

But for the MAX setting on the VM I firmly believe your wrong, Setting an MAX VM setting will stop it being fragmented.

So when it is in use..... Its more quickly accessed.
The Idea is that you set it large enough so it doesnt need adjusting.

[Train]

WinMe defrag will defrag the virtual. Afterall it is diskeeper 5.0 and you can use the 30 day trial of diskeeper 7.0 to verify that.
I use 150MB for min and let windows set the max.

That is the fastest setting that I have found by using a time built into my 3D rendering program.

But like WhitPhil stated, it does not help resources.

[WhitPhil]

Originally posted by Techtips



After checking some other site I see you right about the 2.5 Rule.

IT was meant for smaller RAM size of 64MB and less

But for the MAX setting on the VM I firmly believe your wrong, Setting an MAX VM setting will stop it being fragmented.

So when it is in use..... Its more quickly accessed.
The Idea is that you set it large enough so it doesnt need adjusting.

If you run SYSMON while you run your normal or above normal environment, you can monitor swapfile size. Add 10-20MBs to this number and use that for the MIN.
Then restart to DOS, delete the existing swapfile (otherwise windows just uses it), and restart.
You will now have a contiguous swapfile.

train: Are you sure WinMe defrag, defrags the swapfile? If you have set a MIN, the file is already unframented to start with.

If you are running with a Windows managed swapfile you can check if this is happening,
Before the defrag open a DOS window and enter
Scandisk /f c:\windows\win386.swp
to see if the file is fragmented.
Then defrag and repeat the scandisk.

[Yuri]

I know it might sound rediculous but have you tried running a program called Ad-aware, it is possible that you might have some spyware floating around inside your machine.
Just a thought......

[Train]

Originally posted by WhitPhil


train: Are you sure WinMe defrag, defrags the swapfile? If you have set a MIN, the file is already unframented to start with.

If you are running with a Windows managed swapfile you can check if this is happening,
Before the defrag open a DOS window and enter
Scandisk /f c:\windows\win386.swp
to see if the file is fragmented.
Then defrag and repeat the scandisk.

I did the testing with WinMe and used Diskeeper 5.0 before I set my min. for several days. It would show that there were fragments in the swap and after defragging they were gone. Used Diskeeper 7.0 a couple months ago and it said the same thing. Was working on different computer than mine.

Thanks for the DOS commands , figured they existed, just never have seen them before.

[WhitPhil]

WinMe IS Diskeeper 5.0?
I always thought WinMe was just based on the Diskeeper technology?

For anyone following this post, if you are running the WinMe Defrag program, use the Scandisk command above to check on the swapfile fragementation before and after a defrag, to see if it is actually being defragged.

Thanks

[Train]

Yes, WinMe is based on diskeeper 5.0, anyway that is what was posted on their website way back when.
They used the windows GUI and basics which I prefer over the Diskeepers'. And it looks like they put the full 7.0 in xp to me.

[WhitPhil]

In which case it would be interesting to see if WinMe defrag actually defrags the swapfile or not.

[Train]

I agree.

[Techtips]

Originally posted by WhitPhil
In which case it would be interesting to see if WinMe defrag actually defrags the swapfile or not.

#

Yes good point.