EASY-CD List Messages related to Windows 95 Performance and Virtual Memory Manager



This excerpt was put together and edited by Dick Langley from all the easycd

digest lists.  It contains pertinent discussions related to Windows 95

performance and Virtual Memory Management.



Last update: October 16, 1996



What's covered:



Virtual Memory ON/OFF

Swap File sizes

File Cache sizes

"Typical Role Of This Computer" Bug in Registry

FastFind.exe from Microsoft Office 95



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #42  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 14:12:05 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler

From: Dick Langley 



I have an interesting situation that I've found over the past couple of days.



First, my system:p166 Triton MB, 80MB EDO 60ns, 512K L2 cache

Samsung IDE CD-ROM

Conner 2.1 GB SCA HD (converted to SCSI-III) 2 part. (c,e)

Seagate 2900 MB SCSI-II HD 3 part. (d,f,g)

Sony 920S

Conner Autoloader DAT Tape

CrystaLake Sound Card

EtherNet card

Matrox Millenium 4 MB

Win 95 out of the box (no savers, virus, monitors, or TSR's)

Easy CD Pro 95



I collected 22 wave files on my E: drive.  I created a layout of CD-DA with

EasyCD and ran a test.  It failed!  Ejected the caddy and froze Win 95 (another

problem???).  Wasn't notified of an underrun??  I began watching what was going

on very closely.  I noticed (with only Easy CD running) that after I got into

the 3rd track, maybe up to the 5th, that my HD started jumping around.  I don't

know why because nothing's running but EASY CD.  Eventually, there's enough

delay it appears to cause an underrun and crashes Win 95.  I've done just about

every other thing I've seen in this list but play with Virt. Mem.  I first tried

fixing the swap size.  Tried 256M first then 128M.  Neither worked any

differently.  I then tried the ultimate!!  What the hey, I've got 80 MB of ram.

I should be able to load ALL of Win 95 in mem.  I turned off Virt. Mem. last

night.  Much to my surprise, the only HD activity was that by Easy CD reading

those wave files.  The LED from my SCSI card flashed steadily with NO indication

of any kind of delay.  This situation appeared to be MUCH more reliable!!  Is

this by design???  Does Win 95 Paging Manager (mangler) take the system for

periods of time, say, after a single thread has been running about 15 min. doing

all the work in the system???



It appears that my method of recording will be 1) defrag disks, 2) shut down

anything that would interrupt the system, and 3) turn off Virt. Mem. and

re-boot.



Is there no way to give a thread priority???  Or, is there a way to load ALL of

Easy CD into memory, fix it (provided you have the mem), so paging of Easy CD

won't happen???



Any other suggestions??



Dick



- -

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 09:54:36 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler

From: Dave Grimes 



At 02:12 PM 8/13/96 PDT, Dick Langley wrote:>

>I have an interesting situation that I've found over the past couple of days.



 [snip]



>I should be able to load ALL of Win 95 in mem.  I turned off Virt. Mem. last

>night.  Much to my surprise, the only HD activity was that by Easy CD reading

>those wave files.  The LED from my SCSI card flashed steadily with NO

indication

>of any kind of delay.  This situation appeared to be MUCH more reliable!!  Is

>this by design???  Does Win 95 Paging Manager (mangler) take the system for

>periods of time, say, after a single thread has been running about 15 min.

doing

>all the work in the system???



[snip]



>Is there no way to give a thread priority???  Or, is there a way to load ALL of



>Easy CD into memory, fix it (provided you have the mem), so paging of Easy CD

>won't happen???



Hi Dick -



You didn't mention what SCSI controller you were using, hopefully it's a bus

mastering card and not an overloaded "processor I/O" card like the AVA 15XX.

That card combined with a "processor I/O" IDE HD can really hog things and

make things really marginal when doing a burn.



In my experience, Win95 enters flatland somewhere between 16 and 32MB.

Fixing the swapfile in place by setting min=max=whatever you want should

be fine.  Might also want to do the same thing with your HD cache by saying



[vcache]

MinFileCache=something in K

MaxFileCache=same thing



in SYSTEM.INI.   Win95 reorganizes and resizes the HD cache just like it will

the swapfile if you let it.  This should tame that activity down.



Make sure AutoInsertNotify is turned off for all your CD transports.  The

Easy CD executable is so small, even if you do see a dribble of leftover

inpaging after it gets going, should be satisfied from the HD readahead and you should

have plenty of page cache anyway.  One seek to read anything that remains not fixed

in that executable shouldn't kill a burn unless you were buffer underrun anyway.



Unless you have a close to 100% CPU load (which you may) juggling threads

is not likely to make a whole lot of difference.   You won't get ahead of

the Exec itself anyway.  I'd bet you would benefit from a look at how your I/O

controllers are behaving and see if you can get one of them to busmaster so you

can get some overlap and get your CPU load down.



Hope this helps -



Dave



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #43  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 13:05:35 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: DUlmer@corp.adaptec.com



You've hit on one of those Win95 idiocyncracies that stand in the way of

clean CD-R recording.  Yes, we *can* establish thread priority, and we do,

but that does not mean we can prevent the OS from *any* activity.  We have a

solution though, in the labs right now.  We're working out ways to block

system requests and file requests that shouldn't be allowed any priority

level while burning.  For example, today you can start a burn, and launch

Word.  Although we grab 100% cpu cycles and the highest priority possible,

Win95 still allows Word to poll the drive.



- -- D



David_Ulmer@corp.adaptec.com

Marketing Manager

Adaptec Software Products



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 96 16:00:50 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dave Grimes 



At 01:05 PM 8/14/96 PDT, Dave Ulmer wrote:

>

>You've hit on one of those Win95 idiosyncracies that stand in the way of

>clean CD-R recording.  Yes, we *can* establish thread priority, and we do,

>but that does not mean we can prevent the OS from *any* activity.  We have a

>solution though, in the labs right now.  We're working out ways to block

>system requests and file requests that shouldn't be allowed any priority

>level while burning.  For example, today you can start a burn, and launch

>Word.  Although we grab 100% cpu cycles and the highest priority possible,

>Win95 still allows Word to poll the drive.



Hi Dave -



 Shame that anyone would have to grab 100% of the CPU to get good

NEAR realtime response.  Shame too that anyone would have to poke around

fighting the Exec which is always going to assert itself even if the system has

non-prioritized I/O.   My understanding is the NT (particularly SCSI) I/O

manager suffers similarly when it comes to critical communications and IMHO

Microsoft

should be paying you for this.  :>



The same folks who are saying that 17, 4K scatter/gather ops (68K max transfer)

is enough for anyone regardless of their controller capability are the same

folks who once said 640K was enough memory for anyone.



Thanks for the effort -



Dave



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #47  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 13:47:31 PDT

Subject: pass test, underrun during write



From: DUlmer@corp.adaptec.com



Have you know, one of our areas of concentration for our forward development

is exactly this.  We've made great progress in creating system spys that

will intercept Win95 tasks that might disrupt a burn, and keep them busy

while the recording is in progress.



- -- D

Adaptec Software Products Group

david_ulmer@corp.adaptec.com



in reply to:



From: Dave Grimes 



At 12:13 PM 8/20/96 PDT, Dick Langley wrote:

>>

>> If you just got off the net prior to starting this, RNAAPP (RAS dialer)

>> likes to hang around for a few minutes and often hang the system.

>> There may be other processes that lurk like this but I make it a

>> habit to give it the old Ctrl-Alt-Del three finger salute to kill such

>> things before they start trouble.  Maybe you'll see something.

>

>Yes, I have the capability to get on the Net and Intranet at work.  But I

>hadn't even brushed against those ICONs!!  Was not on the net, WAS from a

>fresh boot though.



Gotta be one of the other demons from the old list we've all contributed

to then: (1) auto insert notify; (2) auto swapfile compact; (3) auto cache

resize; and so on.  Plug and Pray.  Hope you find it.



Best regards -



Dave



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #48  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 12:57:08 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dick Langley 



I have a story to tell about this subject!  It has to do with

Win 95's virtual memory mangler and VCache.  Thanks to Paul

Green for giving me the clue that got me here!!



I found out that I can run System Monitor (SM) while doing a

test burn with easy cd pro.  So I started montoring "things".

My first cut was to monitor CPU, allocated mem, free mem,

discards, page faults, page ins, page outs, disk cache size,

other mem, and locked mem.  So every 5 secs I get a clue of

what's going on.  I also mon'ed threads and VM's, but that

didn't contribute.  (20-23 threads, only 1 VM ever???)



Before EZCDP started, SM showed 35MB alloc mem, 52.4MB free,

17MB cache, 24.8MB other, and 19.8MB locked.  WOW.



After EZCDP is loaded, SM showed 37.8MB alloc, 50.4MB free,

26.4MB other, and 19.5MB locked.



I let EZCDP go ahead with the test burn.  After EZCDP filled

Sony's cache and before all the HD reads started for the WAV

files, SM showed cpu 100%, 39MB alloc, and 49MB free.



When the I/O finally started, a very interesting thing started

happening.  Allocated mem went up to about 100MB, free mem went

to 0, disk cache went to 78MB, other mem went to 87MB, and

locked went to 80MB.  When free got to 0, every 30 sseconds,

discards bumped and page outs bumped.  Also, faults bumped and

page ins bumped.  I could cause a flurry of paging now by just

bringing up the task bar!!!  Also, the swap file increased to

13.8MB.



When I got to the 11th track of 22, Win 95 froze.  My other

problem???  I think not!



So what does this tell me.  When you read/write new clusters not

already in VCache, VCache allocates mem for the cluster in the

cache.  As new clusters keep getting allocated, VCache gobbles

up free mem for the space.  When free mem goes to zero and the

system needs some mem space, VCache frees up some cache spaces,

it gets discard'ed and becomes free, the system allocates it,

the system then normalizes with a small flurry of paging. (I/O

to swap)



What does this mean?  On slower systems with less ram (486/33

16MB), this flurry of system activity can take enough time and

I/O interruption to possibly cause an under-run!



Thanks to Paul Green for the info to limit VCache's impact on

the system.  I belong to MSDN and did a search for "Win95

vcache" off their library.  You'l find a PSS ID Number Q108079

that talks about Win 3.11 having dialogs to change/set disk file

cache sizes and that Win 95 does NOT.  You have to go to

SYSTEM.INI to make the changes your self.  BTW, don't set

MinFileCache to zero.  It turns OFF what your trying to do.

MaxFileCache is ignored.  Always put some number in there like

512.



So now, what did I change??  I set my Virtual Mem to 0 for min

and 2 1/2 times my ram for the max (200).  I went to File

System... and set my Typical Use to Network Server (from

Desktop).  Recommended for large ram systems!  I edited

SYSTEM.INI with notepad and found the header [vcache].  It's in

there for a Win 95 install, just nothing specified under it!!  I

added MinFileCache=512 and MaxFileCache=2048.  Re-boot is in

order next!!



Now I ran SM and EZCDP with the same test burn as before.



What did I find out this time???  Swap file went to 0 and stayed

there!  Alloc mem stayed flat at 25.3MB, free mem stayed flat at

64.4MB, cache size stayed flat at 2MB, other mem stayed flat at

11.3MB, and locked mem stayed flat at 4.3MB.  Discards, faults,

p ins, and p outs ALL stayed flat at ZERO.  The burn zoomed

through at the rated 2X speed without a wimper.



Microsoft testing did NOT include cache sizes greater than 40MB.

I was running at 78MB and alot of Win95 was paged out!  I may

have found my freeze problem.  I haven't had one yet (since

changes) but it was getting late (again) and didn't have time to

exercise the system.  Time will tell!!



VCache can cause agravation to a system that has time dependent

processes because it will eventually gobble up all free memory.

(depending on how much new cluster I/O you perform).  Burns are

reading up to 650MB of new clusters to write to the CD-R.  That

should fill up your mem and then some!!  VMM isn't the greatest

thing in the world yet.  Win 95's is basically NT's!  NT folks,

you might look for the same things as I found here.



Well that's it for now.  Time will tell if this fixes other

problems.  So far, I see a happy ending to this story.  Thanks

to all who contributed info to help!!



Happy trails...     Dick



************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #49  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 11:35:15 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dick Langley 



The beat goes on!!  I did some more testing last weekend that

helped me understand better what was going on!  I also

learned somemore stuff!



I have 80 MB of ram so I set my MaxFileCache to 10240 (10MB).

I booted at about 10:39.  I started running EZCDP 95 to see

if Win 95 would lockup.  After running three test burns

back-to-back, everything was running fine.  Then it

happened!!!



Almost exactly 2 hours after I booted 95, the disk took off

again!!  Not big time and for probably less than 20 seconds.

I happened to have SM running.  I was at the end of the third

burn during that time it waits forever (for me 3 min 45 sec)

to finish off the CD-DA.  A bunch of faults happened with

corresponding page ins (pretty much one for one).  A bunch of

file system reads and files system writes took off.  Then it

went away.  Only to return EVERY 2 hours.  I was on for just

over twelve hours and it DID happen every two hours!!  After

the six test burns, I searched MSDN's lib for anything in Win

95 that was to run every two hours.  I couldn't find a

thing!!  Anybody got any ideas???  Win 95 is running clean

except for the Office 95 tool bar.  When you boot Win 95

there are about 18 threads running.  The task list doesn't

show what these threads are!  (Win 95/ SP1 plus the kernal

update to fix the tcp/ip mem leak introduced in SP1.)



The good news is that I had NO lookups!!!!  I ran six test

burns, did a two hour stint in MSDN, then was on the Net the

rest of the time.  Hurray!  It appears that if vcache is

allowed to take ALL of ram available, there must be something

in the page manager that get swapped too.  This would cause a

lookup!  There could be other reasons too.  Anyway, I'm

running this way for the time being.



I attached an e-mail from Peter Lee that explains another

problem in the registry.  I verified that this was true on my

system and corrected the problem.  WARNING!  If you're

uncomfortable editing the registry, the problem will not stop

anything from working.  Just set you Typical Use to Desktop

and you will get the default numbers for the name and path

caches.



NT users.  I've done some research on NT's VMM.  It works

differently than Win 95's.  To begin with, every application

runs in it's own address space (VM) except for 16 bit apps

(they run in one - the WOW VM).  The virtual cache, (file and

virtual file), occupies its own address space.  It starts at

64MB and can increase to 512MB.  It has the characteristic of

taking available ram for space but all this space is also

pagable (not like 95 where it's locked).  So file I/O can

cause real I/O that can cause paging (in a busy system).  It

appears that all this "stuff" is supposed to be auto-tuning.

I can't find any parameters to tell NT what to do.  It would

appear that when NT fills vcache with your file data and real

ram, that you can start paging.  Win 95 thrashes, I don't

know what NT does in this case!!  I have the ability to run

NT at home but don't.  Not until drivers for ALL my cards are

available (now only the sound card).



BTW, Win 95 only uses one VM to run everything except MS-DOS

boxes!  They might call it premptive multitasking, but it

still looks like cooperative multitasking!!



Happy Trails...    again...      Dick



- ---------------------------------------------------------

From "Peter J. Lee" :



Hi,

        I'll have to try your vcache suggestion.



>.. and set my Typical Use to Network Server (from

>Desktop).



This may amuse you .  .  .  .



> Knowledge Base article  "Q138012" at Microsoft's web site:

>

>Incorrect Settings for File System Performance Profiles

>Article ID: Q138012

>Revision Date: 26-JAN-1996

>

>The information in this article applies to:

>

> - Microsoft Windows 95

>

>IMPORTANT: This article contains information about editing the registry.

Before you edit the registry, you should first make a backup

copy of the registry files (System.dat and User.dat). Both are hidden

files in the Windows folder.

>

>SYMPTOMS

>

>The performance of the file system on your computer is unchanged or

degraded after you select Network Server or Mobile Or Docking

System in the Typical Role Of This Computer box in the File System

Properties dialog box.

>

>CAUSE

>

>The NameCache and PathCache values are written to the registry incorrectly

for the Network Server and Mobile Or Docking System profiles.

The data for NameCache is written to the PathCache value, and the data for

PathCache is written to the NameCache value.

>

>RESOLUTION

>

>NOTE: For information about how to edit the registry, view the Changing

Keys And Values online Help topic in Registry Editor

(Regedit.exe). Note that you should make a backup copy of the registry files

(System.dat and User.dat) before you edit the registry.

>WARNING: Using Registry Editor incorrectly can cause serious problems that

may require you to reinstall Windows 95. Microsoft cannot guarantee that

problems resulting from the incorrect use of Registry Editor can be solved.

Use Registry Editor at your own risk. Modify the NameCache and PathCache

values in the following registry key:

>

>   Hkey_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\FS

>   Templates

>

>NOTE: The value data for these settings is in hexadecimal format. For the

Mobile Or Docking System profile, use the following data:



>   Value name   Value data

>   ------------------------

>   NameCache    51 01 00 00

>   PathCache    10 00 00 00

>

>For the Network Server profile, use the following data:

>

>   Value name   Value data

>   ------------------------

>   NameCache    a9 0a 00 00

>   PathCache    40 00 00 00

>



>STATUS

>

>Microsoft has confirmed this to be a problem in Microsoft Windows 95. We

are researching this problem and will post new information here in the

Microsoft Knowledge Base as it becomes available.

>

>MORE INFORMATION

>

>After you modify the registry settings, use the following procedure to

optimize your file system performance:

>

>1. In Control Panel, double-click the System icon.

>

>2. On the Performance tab, click File System.

>

>3. In the Typical Role For This Computer box, click the most common

>   role for your computer, and then click OK.



>The default profile (Desktop Computer) does not use the NameCache or

PathCache values in the registry. Instead, the file system

defaults are used.

>

>NOTE: The profile values for NameCache and PathCache listed in the

"Microsoft Windows 95 Resource Kit" (page 566) are correct;

however, they

are listed in decimal format. For the Desktop Computer

profile, the default

value for NameCache is a5 02 00 00, and the default value for

PathCache is

20 00 00 00.

>

>REFERENCES

>

>For additional information about optimizing file system performance, please

see the "Microsoft Windows 95 Resource Kit," pages 565-567,

"Optimizing File

System Performance with Profiles."

>--

Peter J. Lee

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~plee/

  Applied Superconductivity Center  -  University of

Wisconsin-Madison

       1500 Engineering Drive Rm. 939 ERB, Madison WI

53706-1687

             Tel.: 608-263-1760        FAX:  608-263-1087

                email discalimer and warning:

http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~plee/emailwarn.htm



************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 08:48:00 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dave Mrochuk 



Hi Dick,



In "start-programs-startup" I have...

1.  Office Fast Start

2.  Office Shortcut Bar

3.  I don't have this one, be damned if I can remember its name.  In any =

case it is from MO.  It's job is to create a directory of MO things =

every-two-hours!  Just like that!  It builds a log file on your root =

directory.  The times are every 2 hours.  I removed it.  It was kinda =

fun figuring when to burn the CD tho.



- ----------

From: Dick Langley 



Only to return EVERY 2 hours.  I was on for just=20

over twelve hours and it DID happen every two hours!!  After=20

the six test burns, I searched MSDN's lib for anything in Win=20

95 that was to run every two hours.  I couldn't find a=20

thing!!  Anybody got any ideas???  Win 95 is running clean=20

except for the Office 95 tool bar



_____

Dave Mrochuk

davem@planet.eon.net

http://www.planet.eon.net/~davem/daytrex.html



******************************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 13:37:37 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dick Langley 



You might have something here!!!   I have MS Office 95 installed.  I

assumed (you know what they say about assume) that it just sat there.  My

system is at home.  I'm at work!  I'll check and get back!



Thanks a bunch...     Dick



> From: Dave Mrochuk 

>

> In "start-programs-startup" I have...

> 1.  Office Fast Start

> 2.  Office Shortcut Bar

> 3.  I don't have this one, be damned if I can remember its name.  In any =

> case it is from MO.  It's job is to create a directory of MO things =

> every-two-hours!  Just like that!  It builds a log file on your root =

> directory.  The times are every 2 hours.  I removed it.  It was kinda =

> fun figuring when to burn the CD tho.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #50  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 16:05:51 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dave Mrochuk 



Hi Dick,



I had informed another person about this on Compuserve quite a while =

back.  Thinking I'd told him the file name I looked it up my old =

messages.  Didn't tell him the file name but told him it did its thing =

every 12 minutes!



With that in mind and you having problems I phoned a friend who I knew =

had MO installed and asked him to check his start folder.



The file executed is 'FindFast.exe'.  Its in the msoffice\office =

directory.  The log file is 'c:\ffastlog.txt'.



My friend on looking at his log told me it was updating every 15 minutes =

on his machine.  maybe yours is at 2 hour increments?  In any case I =

haven't used it for 9 or 10 months with no problems.  To see what 'Find =

Fast' is all about look up 'Find Fast' (two words) from within any MO =

program (word, excel, etc,).



Side note to Deirdre':  You might keep this in mind for future docs.  =

This coupled with multi-threading just about earns me a star .  Well =

maybe a slightly tarnished one.



Dave Mrochuk

davem@planet.eon.net

http://www.planet.eon.net/~davem/daytrex.html



- ----------

From: Dick Langley 



You might have something here!!!   I have MS Office 95 installed.  I=20

assumed (you know what they say about assume) that it just sat there.  =

My=20

system is at home.  I'm at work!  I'll check and get back!



Thanks a bunch...     Dick



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 08:28:41 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dick Langley 



Even before I can get home, I have an answer!!!  Isn't life great!!

I searched the MSDN Lib and found an article about MS Office

Architecture (Chapter 1:).  The very LAST things in this chapter

talks about Fast Find!!  I pasted those paragraphs here.  I'd hope I

can use them without thier (MS) explicit permission if I say were I

got them.



Anyway, I know I got this guy going at home and it fits the two hour

time frame to a tee.  Now, all I have to do is go to my Control Panel

and double click that fast find guy to try and turn 'em OFF.  As

indicated by these paragraphs, the interval for this wake-up can get

as short as every 30 min.  (This is, if I'm doing Document work

before burning CD's.)



Thanks, thanks, thanks...  I knew there was a reason why I was here!!



Dick

- -----------------------------------------------------------



Find Fast Indexer



The Find Fast indexer is a utility provided by Office that allows a

user=92s system to create an index of document files on the local

system or on a network share. Find Fast indexes are not seen by

users, but are used by Office applications to make file searches

faster. Indexes correspond to folders: the name, scope and location

of each index matches that of its associated folder.



The indexer and indexes do not greatly tax system resources. The

indexer can work in the background as an idle-time process, and

indexes are usually less than five percent of the size of the

document collection being indexed. For more information about using

the Find Fast indexer, see =93Finding and Managing Documents within a

Workgroup=94 in Chapter 15.



By default, Setup installs the indexer as the file Findfast.exe in

the user=92s \Msoffice\Office folder, copies a Find Fast shortcut to

the \Windows\Start Menu\StartUp folder, and installs Find Fast in the

Windows Control Panel. Setup also installs the Find Fast log file,

Ffastlog.txt, in the user=92s \Windows\System folder. The location of

the indexer is specified in the Registry key Hkey_Local_Machine

\Software\Microsoft\Shared Tools Location, and the location of the

log file is specified in the Registry key

Hkey_Local_Machine\Software\Microsoft\Shared Tools\Find Fast\95.



Users can access the Find Fast indexer by going to the Control Panel

and double-clicking on the Find Fast icon. The Find Fast dialog box

allows users to create and delete indexes, to force an update to

their index, to suspend indexing, and to see information about their

index. By default, the Find Fast indexer creates an index of all

Office documents, but users can choose to index whatever type of

files they want. For example, they can index only PowerPoint

presentations (*.ppt and *.pot files), or they can expand the index

to include all files (*.*). Users can also choose the location of the

index, such as the \Msoffice folder or the root folder of their hard

drive. When the indexer creates an index, it creates the files

__ofidx.ffa, __ofidx.ffl, and __ofidx0.ffx in the folder being

indexed. Indexes cover all searchable files of a folder, including

subfolders. Indexes are updated automatically by default.



Instead of a root-level index, users may elect to create several

smaller indexes for each volume that they want to search. Users can

create as many indexes as they want, providing corresponding folders

don=92t overlap. That is, the folder of one index cannot contain the

folder of another index. Following are some reasons that multiple

indexes might be practical:



*     The user has multiple hard drives, such as a C and a D drive.



*     The user may want to index a Windows for Workgroups share.

Because the folder for one index cannot be above or below the folder

for another index, the user needs to create several indexes to cover

all documents of a drive. For example, if the Windows for Workgroups

folder is top-level, the user may want to create additional indexes

for each other top-level folder.



*     The user creates an index for a share on a NetWare server. It

would be unnecessary for the user to create an index for a Windows 95

or NT file server, as these servers should already be running an

instance of the indexer, maintaining an index of server files.



How Indexes are Updated



When the Find Fast indexer creates an index, it produces a single

master index that is optimized for speed and size. The Find Fast

indexer updates and optimizes the master index as follows:



 1.     Perform a simple update to produce a sorted term list. The

list contains one term for each document that is out of date.

Documents are out of date if their current last-saved time stamp

differs from the time stamp stored in the index.



 2.     Periodically merge collections of sorted term lists to

produce a shadow index. A shadow index is structured the same as a

master index, and is usually much smaller and faster than the

collection of term lists it replaces.



 3.     Periodically merge together all shadow indexes and the

previous master index to produce a new master index.



The interval between automatic updates is adjusted automatically by

the indexer based on past updates, according to the following rules:



*     Update interval initially is two hours.



*     If more than 10 files are out of date on the current update,

then the update interval is shortened by 15 minutes, down to a

minimum of 30 minutes. Files added, deleted, or modified since the

last update all count as being out of date.



*     If 10 or fewer files are out of date on the current update,

then the update interval is lengthened by 15 minutes up to a maximum

of 24 hours.



Find Fast Indexer Log



As the Find Fast indexer updates indexes, it logs events and errors

in a log file, Ffastlog.txt. Users are not alerted to errors and

messages from the indexer. To see these messages, users must click

Show Indexer Log on the Index menu in the Find Fast dialog box.



Events in the log file are listed so that the most recent events

appear at the beginning of the file. The indexer log is truncated

when its size exceeds 20K. When this happens, the log file displays a

message that the log has been truncated.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------



> From: Dave Mrochuk 

>

> Hi Dick,

>

> I had informed another person about this on Compuserve quite a while

> back.  Thinking I'd told him the file name I looked it up my old

> messages.  Didn't tell him the file name but told him it did its thing



    <<  snip  >>



> assumed (you know what they say about assume) that it just sat there.

> My20

> system is at home.  I'm at work!  I'll check and get back!

>

> Thanks a bunch...     Dick

************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #51  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Wed, 28 Aug 96 15:19:04 PDT

Subject: Virtual Memory Mangler



From: Dick Langley 



Actually, you're real close to what happens.  The startup folder IS where

it gets installed and therefore starts at every boot. (unless you take it

out of course.)  If you "pause" the indexing, the thread stays there (so

you can "un-pause" it again.  However, when you boot, it is un-paused from

the get-go.  The "normal" function starts again!!  You can get rid of it

(until the next boot) by closing with shut down (?? I think this was what

it was.)  There's lots of ways to start it!  1) If findfast is in startup -

boot.  2) From Control Panel, dbl click FindFast and do JUST a close.  3)

From a DOS box or the RUN, execute "c:\msoffice\office\findfast.exe", then

close it.  4) From a DOS box or RUN, execute

"c:\msoffice\office\findfast.exe /noui".  (This starts findfast without

bringing up the UserInterface!! "- same as what's in startup -").  All

these file references assume you installed MSOffice on your C: drive.



Another suggestion I got was remove it from the startup folder and make a

shortcut on the desktop.  You got it if you need it and only loose a little

real estate if you don't.



In any case, if you let findfast go do its thing in the middle of a burn,

it can put enough I/O's on you SCSI bus (if that's where your HD's are)

that it will delay EZCDP from supplying enough data to the CD-R.

(300K/second at 2X isn't real fast for a SCSI bus).  Try this!!  Start a

test burn and bring up your favorite WAV editor and load up a 4 or 5 minute

WAV file.  First it usually reads it and writes a temp file for editing.

On my "fast" system, I can almost always force an under-run!!



Burn baby burn...      Dick



easycd@list.adaptec.com wrote:

>

> From: Dave Mrochuk 

>

> Hi Dick,

>

> As I have absolutely no reference to fastfind on my machine I believe I =

> uninstalled via the MO CD.  Probably via custom setup.  If you can only =

> suspend it, it might reset itself on the next boot.  You could also =

> remove it from the startup group.

>

> Stick around, you're reply was quite informative.

>

> Dave Mrochuk

> davem@planet.eon.net

> http://www.planet.eon.net/~davem/daytrex.html



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #60  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Thu, 12 Sep 96 23:41:56 PDT

Subject: EasyCD Pro Mortician



From: Dick Langley 



> From: Frank Biba 

>

> I had earlier posted mail re inability to even test burn straight data

> copies of CD from CD, hard disk, image, etc with EZCD Pro 1.14 and 1.2.

> I replaced my CD reader to a Plextor 6x (from a Plextor 4x), and I sent



    <<  snip  >>



> software with the Plextor CD readers.  Incidentally I have seen several

> emails here with 133 Pentiums having "slow system" messages similar to

> mine.



I can't believe a p133 with reasonable ram would be a "slow" system either.

I would look elsewhere...  ie the OS, SCSI bus(es), device type and placement

on SCSI-IDE, and in some cases the source CD itself.  DL



>

> The Adaptec MPD driver is version 1.3 (the latest, I believe), and I

> loaded the latest ASPI32 layer (June).  I tried the suggestions

> presented in Dick Langley's excellent treatise, "Virtual Memory Mangler"

> of 8/23/96.  I set the computer to the "server" option, set my Vcache to

> 512 minimum and 2048 max, and set virtual memory to 0 minimum and 192



A general rule-of-thumb for max filecache is 25% of real ram.  With your

system, a max size of 16384 or 20480 should be adequate.  You just need to

make sure you have room for the OS and your application(s).



> max.  I ran System Monitor and monitored all the computer functions as

> did Dick Langley.  On the light side, I noticed that the test burns were

> running the b-Jesus out of the CPU, nearly 100 percent!  I did notice



EZCDP running at 100%!!!   I saw earlier that EZCDP runs at 100% BY DESIGN.

The idea, I think, is that if you already have the CPU, you don't have to

compete for it.  That works until you run into Win 95 (which is premptive

multi-tasking).  This doesn't appear to be a problem though.  As long as you

manage the other things going on around the application (EZCDP).



> that the test burns would run longer with these above modifications, and

> on occasion I could complete a test burn at 1x successfully.



I didn't see this as being the case in my testing...  Something else going

on????



>

> Now the interesting part.  On doing a STRAIGHT CD TO CD COPY, NONE of

> these problems occurred!  I was able to complete test burns at 2x

> virtually every time, no CD reader "hiccups", no error messasages, and

> no buffer underruns!  I have been under the impression that CD to CD

> copy is the most demanding method of CD recording.  I have seen

> information that indicates that this method of recording is not

> recommended, as it causes the highest rate of buffer underruns.



Only "file system reads/writes" go through vcache (like VFAT and CDFS).  It's

my impression that if you go directly to the ASPI interface to do reading,

vcache management will have little effect.  I don't know what else to offer,

except either your SCSI bus gets busy or the source device gets busy.  Make

sure you don't have any IRQ, DMA, I/O addr conflicts.  Maybe someone else can

offer info. about reading from the 6Plex source device.  DL



>

> In conclusion it looks as though the bottleneck is with the CD reader,

> not the 4020i, the bus, or the CPU.  I don't think the problem is with

> the hard disks, the IDE, ISA, or SCSI pipeline.  However I would presume

> that a straight CD to CD copy would tax the CD reader to the max, but

> this method (at least in my case) is the most reliable.  Might this be

> an EZCDPro problem?  Is there life after death?  Help!



************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #62  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 00:45:00 PDT

Subject: Buffer Underruns: Typical Role advice needs advice



From: "Pekka Saarinen" 



Dear Deirdre,



You have a page http://www.adaptec.com/cdrec/technotes/bufunder.html, =

which defines what you should do to avoid buffer underruns. There, under =

WIN95 section there's advice to change the typical role of the machine =

to "Network Server".



Well, there's a bug in WIN95 regarding that setting, and it might cause =

degraded hard disk performance. (A Bug in Win95 --- who would have =

guessed!)



Go to http://www.microsoft.com/kb/

and search for: "typical role", and you'll find two articles, the second =

one tells how to go around this bug.



You might want to correct your page to contain this information, too.



Best Regards,



- ---- Pekka Saarinen



Member of the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra   ( Playin' the Bass! )

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sci.fi/~contacts/ http://www.yle.fi/ylenykko/rso/index.html

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks for the tip. I'll check that out as soon as I get home on Wednesday.



Best regards, Deirdre' Straughan



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #64  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 02:46:13 PDT

Subject: Locked Up in the Middle...



From: Dick Langley 



> From: Mark Szabo 

>

> P133/80MBram/AHA1535/Pinn5040/Maxtor1.0gb. Win95. Enough?



I experienced Win95 lockups also.  Haven't had one now for a while.  I

attribute this to the way Win95 handles VMM.  If you allow vcache to run free,

it will take ALL your real ram.  MS has already documented that they had not

tested Win95 with a vcache larger than 40MB!!  My p166/80MB machine would

lockup while in easycd and also after I got out of easycd.  The common

denominator here was not only easycd but, more importantly, the large amount of

data read through vcache.  When I limited vcache to something like 163840K (a

good number for you, 25% of real ram) I NEVER experienced a Win95 lockup

again!!  Plus my swap size went to zero and extra paging that had gone on went

away.  Without limiting vcache and with a system such as ours, I can only

attribute that Win95 lockup to a bug in VMM when vcache goes larger than 40MB

and/or when vcache takes all/most of real ram.  It turns out that this was a

good tuning tool for me anyway, my system runs much better and consistantly

since limiting vcache.   DL



>

> Mixed mode write. 13 tracks total; 1 data track @ ~330mb, 12 audio

> tracks, none over 4 minutes long. Copied the data off the original CD to

> the hard drive into a folder. Used the 'Read Track' feature to copy

> audio files to WAV files.

>

> 2x test write completed fully, sucessfully. 2x burn wrote data track and

> 2 audio tracks and system locked. No mouse, no ctrl+alt+del; NOTHING

> made the system respond besides power off. The CDR ready lite was on as

> always; the Write light had gone off.

>

> No TSRs running. I have burned discs since then with no problem. I've

> even INDUCED buffer underruns just to see if the software was responding

> correctly! (Close and open folders on the desktop till it happens. It's

> fun) I seem to have problems with this one particular disc. Some

> considerations:

>

> - I have very little HDD space left (~11mb) on the C: drive that I'm

> copying data from.

> - I have an NEC SCSI CDROM hanging off the controller; not in use during

> burn.

> - When reading the audio in off the CDR, every audio track gave a read

> error in the beginning. But 'Restart Track' cleared it up each time.

>

> - Doing a direct disc copy just plain don't work. 2x test write fails.

> 1x test write works. 1x burn fails.

>

> So, now that the list is back up, any ideas?

>

> MS



************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #65  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 01:17:26 PDT

Subject: Buffer overruns



From: Dick Langley 



> From: Frank Frank 

>

> I'm new to the list, but perhaps someone can help me a little....  I have a

> problem with buffer over-run that I can't seem to fix.  I have called the

> manufacturer of my drive, and they have put me onto Adaptec, saying it is

> more or less a software problem.

>

> I am running a Pentium 133mhz with a Adaptec SCSI 2980 card (the only PCI

> model I know of).  My operating system is Win 95.  I can't remeber a

> successful copy since I started using Win 95.  I am writting with the



I hate to be sounding like a broken record (am I dating myself OR no pun

intended) but, have you done any tuning for Win95's vcache???  Have you seen

the recent articles on this???  It seems like everytime I see someone new to

Win95 and an under-run problem, I first think of vcache, auto insert

notification, and the usual tsr's, screen savers, and monitors!!!



Try some of these things out from previous posts to see if it can help your

problem...    Dick



> Philips CDD521 recorder, and have had successful 2X writes for a while,

> until recently.  The adapter card was replaced about the time 95 was

> installed, so I have no idea who is the problem.

>

> I have the buss terminated properly, and I have turned the auto insertion

> detection off in 95 for both the source drive (A 3X NEC SCSI drive) as well

> as the Philips recorder.

>

> When I attempt to copy from CD to CD (I am duplicating about 10 sets of 4



'Course I might be wrong here too!!  A question for the programmer side of

Adaptec...  If you're doing a CD2CD copy, is the reads coming from a direct

ASPI read from the source CD AND does the ASPI drivers in Win95 send them

through vcache???  If vcache isn't involved in a CD2CD copy, then my stock

answer above won't mean much!!  It does mean something when you're creating

CD-ROM from HD files or CD-DA from WAV files!!  DL

PS In this case, if vcache isn't used in CD2CD, I'd look for SCSI bus

hangups!!  Again DL's 2 cents



> custom cd's) I get buffer under-run about 75-90% thru the write (test runs

> only).  This seems to happen whether I use EasyCD or the latest CD-Copier

> software provided by Adaptec.  Anyone have any ideas on what my problems

> might be?

>

> Frank Frank

************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

=-=-=-=  from: Archive #66  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 12:13:53 PDT

Subject: LIST CD-ROM source -> audio



From: Dick Langley 



> From: "Joel E. Gulliver" 

>

> I am trying your suggestion, but I have a question.  My "vcache" section had

> one entry in it, which was "AllocPageFixed=Off".  What does it mean and

> should I keep it and add your entries or delete it before I add your entries?



Hmmmmmm...  Win 95 documentation seems NOT to want to document what's left in

the INI files that haven't been moved to the registry yet.  Unless someone has

reported a problem that MS has chosen to remedy with INI updates to your

system, INI source documentation doesn't seem to exist!!  Since AllocPageFixed

is in the vcache section and since yours says Off, I can assume the default is

On.  I also know, in systems defaulting to On, that when vcache allocates a

page of real memory for cache, it is locked in memory (doesn't page).  I can

only infer that this parameter allows all of vcache to be pagable. WOW!  Then

my next question would be, how big can the virtual size get??  As big as what's

left in the page file??  Remember, when burning CD's from files on HD, you can

read as much as 650 to 700 MB once.  vcache is best used when going back to

read something already read recently.  Large vcache's for burning CD's don't do

any good.



Now back to my assumptions (you know what they say about "assume"!!).  First,

AllocPageFixed isn't documented in TechNet, MSDN, or the Win 95 Resource Kit!!

If what I assume is true and your parameter causes vcache to be pagable, then

the settings I gave you and AllocPageFixed would be mutually exclusive

(probably).  Use one or the other, but not both.  My opinion... take it out and

limit vcache.  Especially if what you normally do is CD burns.



BTW, I tried turning off virtual memory on a Win 95 machine here at work.  That

does not seem to relate to AllocPageFixed!  Also, AllocPageFixed seems to be

new with Win 95 (not in Win 3.11).  Do you know what you did to get it there???



Dick...



PS   Does anybody know where things still left in SYSTEM.INI are documented????



Curious minds want to know!!!  DL



************************************************************

*Dick Langley                         Dick_Langley@NDEX.COM*

*King County Medical Blue Shield        Voice (206)389-7510*

*1800 9th Ave., Seattle, WA  98101        FAX (206)587-3555*

************************************************************



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 14:18:09 PDT

Subject: Buffer overruns



From: Rob 



>I hate to be sounding like a broken record (am I dating myself OR no pun

>intended) but, have you done any tuning for Win95's vcache???  Have you seen

>the recent articles on this???  It seems like everytime I see someone new to

>Win95 and an under-run problem, I first think of vcache, auto insert

>notification, and the usual tsr's, screen savers, and monitors!!!



Well, I like you am a *strong* advocate of the vcache limit.  People need to

know what kind of a huge speed and overall usability improvement that it

makes on a win95 system, CD-recorder or not!



I understand what Microsoft was trying to do -- make a disk cache that could

theoretically use all leftover RAM for the cache..  Instead they created a

memory consuming monster that causes the machine to thrash to virtual memory

constantly.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=