OS and Software > Microsoft Help > If you go beyond 128 Mbs RAM, do this!

If you go beyond 128 Mbs RAM, do this!

Nice info! Thanks! I'll try it on my test sys.

reply to gordongordo
This is for Win9x systems (not sure if Me will let you do it) only. NT/2k/XP does not have system.ini file.

reply to gordongordo
Thanks! BYW WinMe limit is 512 RAM, another Microslush feature
--
Rogaine on my hard drive didn't eliminate the bad spots

reply to gordongordo
I've been using this tip on my Win98 with 320MB Ram. Works great I was getting tired of Windows not fully using all the ram first. I've got a 200Mhz with 96MB Ram but I haven't used the tip on it yet, but I will.
--
I'm shootin' pool, Fats. When I miss, you can shoot.

reply to gordongordo
like this?

[386Enh]
ebios=*ebios
woafont=dosapp.fon
mouse=*vmouse
device=*dynapage
devi ce=*vcd
device=*vpd
device=*int13
keyboard=*vkd
display=*vdd,*vflatd
ConservativeSwap fileUsage=1
--
"Try not, do, or do not, there is no try."

reply to gordongordo
Thanks once again gordangordo.

reply to gordongordo
Great tip! Thanks!:)

reply to gordongordo
what if you have 128 is there any effect or gain?

reply to WSoxRock
Xsetup and several others will do this for you if you don't want to mess around with Windows yourself.
--
Have you hugged your Glock today?

reply to gordongordo
another memory tweak
Q253912 - Out of Memory Error Messages with Large Amounts ...

ConservativeSwapfileUsage explained here too

Q223294 - INFO The Windows 98 PageFile_Call_Async_Manager Service

article on win95
Q181594 - Windows 95 Can Access Up to Two GB of RAM
--
You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.

After reading the second link that SNERTBASHER posted, I was confused.

"You can disable this feature, causing the system to behave as Windows 95 does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add the following entry to the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section:"

I gathered that this would actually hinder performance vs improving it. Is this correct?

--
Pontiac Freak
Wider Is Better!

said by Pontiac Freak:

---

After reading the second link that SNERTBASHER posted, I was confused.

I gathered that this would actually hinder performance vs improving it. Is this correct?

---

reply to Warzau
Warzau:

The only way to know is to try it. The worst that could happen is that there's improvement. I've never heard of anyone actually having a slowdown with the one line tweak.

You might look at the links I provided in case they explain the effects on 128 MBs of Ram. That said, why not take advantage of enormously cheap RAM and get another 128 Mgs? Just make sure, if it's PC133---even, come to that, PC100 at times---that they are the same speed (nanoseconds, which do vary: two sticks of PC-133 with different nanoseconds will lead to trouble, believe me). For that matter, you'd also do well to get the same brand, to minimize any conflicts.

For the rest---the other tips about tweaking the swapfile (virtual memory) or using a vcache---you'd do better, as the two links in my original post note, to let Windows 98 manage the system. (Windows 95 is another matter.)

How do you know the ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 will improve your performance. The best way is simply to monitor the use of RAM, system resources etc. Windows provides such a meter, but I prefer to use cacheman from Outer Technology. It has nice graphics. Just be sure to IGNORE the vcaching aspect: it will likely gum up Windows 98 management of memory and system resources.

Otherwise, you can simply note that windows will not be accessing your HD very much, if at all. (Since I got 256MBs of RAM 4 months ago and added that tweaking line to system.ini, I have never once got beyond the use of 210 MBs yet---hence never access my HD except to load up a new application once in a while.)

And be very skeptical about other things you hear people do with regard to RAM---e.g., a thread a while ago in DSLR about "defragmenting" RAM. Or programs that claim to provide more RAM without adding it. These usually either don't work or actually make things worse. Windows 98, except for the conservativeswapfile line (which MS now owns up to), is a good manager of memory and resources, though I can't speak about ME at all.

The PC Surgeon General ought to list at every site a caution of this sort: "Warning, too much tweaking can be dangerous to your poor PC's health."

Michael
[text was edited by author 2001-04-20 12:08:31]

When I tried this some time back, my system did indeed respond faster. However, system resources dropped quite a bit faster also.

reply to Pontiac Freak
Pontiac Freak, this tweak works well in most cases. It depends on how the system is setup to manage the page file. These three conditions are crucial: 1)Permanent swapfile, 2)(Large) paging buffers enabled, 3)>=128 MB installed RAM. The later the version you have of Windows, the less you get away with when tweaking memory management. WinME is practically "off limits" for tweakers - Win3.1 lets you do a lot of things to it - Win95 lets you do a little less - Win98 lets you alter some simple things like conv. memory settings, but dislikes the tampering with system core components if not done very precise. You can however get away with a lot of tweaks if you use them in correct combinations with other tweaks, and in the right context. You can't just alter one thing and expect Windows to adapt every affected aspect of the system to it. In this case, when you set the value 'ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1' what you do is you turn off some parts of the VMM and VFAT, namely those parts that separates Win95's VM handling from Win98's(It should be called "Win95SwapfileUsage" to be self-explanatory). What you loose by doing this is 'asynchronous operations', which easily explained means that a pagefile data transaction must wait in line for its predecessor to finish. This is no good of course, so if you use this tweak, and want to continue using asynchronous pagefile operations, you also have to manually tell the memory manager to use pagebuffers by putting in the line 'PageBuffers=X' where 'X' is a value between 0 and 32. Win98 uses 4K buffers as default, but use X==32 for maximum performance. Now 32K buffers only work in 32-bit disk operations, therefore make sure you use this at all times by also putting in the lines '32BitDiskAccess=on' and '32BitFileAccess=on'.
So, here's what it should look like now:

[386Enh]
ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
PageBuffers=32
32BitDiskAccess=on
32BitFi leAccess=on
PagingDrive=X:
MinPagingFileSize=Z
MaxPagingFileSize=Z

The last three lines is to use a fixed swap file. Replace the X and Z's with appropriate values('X:' is which drive you want the swapfile to reside on, and the Z's are the Min and Max sizes of it). Min and Max is the same value. For more info about fixed swap file, read this.

See the correlations between these various tweaks: 'ConservativeSwapfileUsage' requires 'PageBuffers', and 'PageBuffers' requires '32-bit disk access' and a 'permanent swapfile'.

For a good compilation of 386enh tweaks and other System.ini tweaks, go here.

reply to Pinan
Pinan:

That's odd, your dropping of system resources. There shouldn't be any discernible link I can think of, and all I can say is that with cacheman I monitor both my system resources and RAM usage and have never noticed it. I usually start with about 90% system resources, and even running most of the day, the OS seldom drops below 70% resources. Besides, as one of the links I left noted, low system resources---even down to 30% or lower---shouldn't itself be a problem.

Maybe Ping-Pong's explanation after your post contains some further tweaks worth pursuing.

Be interesting to hear from you about this if you experiment.

Michael

reply to PingPong
Ping-Pong:

As usual, a fine, informative analysis about a MS problem that you've offered us. Many thanks. Note that the first link in my initial post briefly, concisely, explains the problem you've set out in your own crisp effective manner.

To save time for those looking at the thread this far, I'll reproduce the relevant paragraphs dealing from the link with this: (Note that the relevant paragraph that refers VFAT etc in your memo is set off by .....)

" . . . Based on benchmark testing by MS-MVPs Mike Burgess, Alex Nichol, and other MS-MVP colleagues, I have concluded that this tweak [ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 in the system.ini] can be of real value in many Win98/ME systems with 128 MB of RAM or more (and on some 64 MB systems). If your machine has sufficient RAM that, for your particular use of your computer, there is relatively little swap file usage, then this tweak will probably improve system performance by reducing the overhead in swap file maintenance activities that you do not really need. [NOTE: In contrast to behavior in Win98, testing of this by Mike Burgess in Windows Millennium Edition showed no significant performance difference with or without it. However, because it does affect swap file run-away growth on some computers -- such as mine! -- I am presently recommending this on Windows ME.]

"The default value of ConservativeSwapfileUsage was 1 in Win95, and 0 in Win98 and WinME. Therefore, this recommended tweak reverts a portion of the Win98/ME improved memory management system back to the way Win95 did things. (That's what sounded like such a bad idea at first, because Win98 or ME is generally far superior to Win95 with regard to memory management.) A valid question, though, is whether it is a good (that is, useful) idea for systems that have grown past the RAM size originally contemplated as typical when Win98 was created. For many computers, the answer seems to be: Yes, it is.

"According to MS Knowledge Base article Q223294,

"'..........Windows 98 added a new feature, PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file (swap file) buffers during periods of time when VFAT file system activity is not busy. This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs [virtual drivers] that monitor and/or otherwise intercept PageFile VxD functions............'

"(See the article itself for more technical background on the rather clever way this function operates.)

"This feature is part of improvements made initially in Windows 98 that lend the appearance of faster performance to a Win98/ME computer because many of the small time-consuming activities are deferred to moments when you are not actually asking the computer to do anything. The tweak described above disables this feature. As MS-MVP Jeff Richards summarized it, "It's more conservative in scheduling non-critical swap-file activity."

"Microsoft advises that this change may be "at some cost in overall system performance." Furthermore, in theory it would seem that this would make the computer seem slower. But only experimentation on a given system (and by a particular user on that system) can determine what the subjective performance difference (pro or con) would be. Based on experience to date, I would say it is probable that this tweak will have a positive effect on systems with an unusually large amount of RAM, and very little swap file activity. It is unlikely that it would have a positive effect on other systems, and might have a negative impact on their performance.

"Since the tweak is so easy to undo -- just remove, or comment out the line added to SYSTEM.INI -- "power users" will likely want to experiment with this and give more feedback to the general community."

So Ping Pong: quite possibly your tweaks deal with the problems that might crop up on some systems. Later today, then---when I get some more time (back to my work now)---I'll try myself to experiment with your added tweaks.

You get my vote for sure anyway.

Michael
[text was edited by author 2001-04-20 15:57:41]

[text was edited by author 2001-04-20 15:59:37]

I don't see that section in my system.ini ? what's the deal?

Win 98

reply to PingPong

Ping Pong: Bad Results, Alas!