If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
I decided to try the "System Cache Boost" tweak, #9b at
http://datacreek.net/webgear/tips/xptweaks.html . It reads, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed. The 4MB of memory left is used for disk caching, but if for any reason more is needed, XP allocates more. Generally, this tweak improves performance by a fair bit but can, in some intensive applications, degrade performance. As with the above tweak, you should have at least 256MB of RAM before attempting to enable LargeSystemCache". Since I have 768MB of RAM, this seemed okay to try. When I rebooted, the display was set to the lowest resolution and color depth and could not be modified by using display properties. Also the following message popped up, "Error loading C:\Winnt\System32\NvCpl.dll. A dynamic link library (DLL) initialization routine failed". I had no trouble reverting my hard drive to the previous state but I am curious to know why it didn't work. Has anybody else found that this tweak gives trouble? Thanks. RHR |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
"Robert H. Risch" wrote:
I decided to try the "System Cache Boost" tweak, #9b at http://datacreek.net/webgear/tips/xptweaks.html . It reads, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed. If I understand "How to Optimize Windows NT Server Using the Registry" (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=232271) correctly and if this still applies to Windows XP you can simply change this setting in the Control Panel System Advanced Performance Settings Advanced without manually editing the Registry. The default setting is 0 what is recommended for machines that do not work as a server. You may want to change the setting and see if this leads to the same results. I would not be too surprised about that because a Server (for which the setting of 1 is the optimum) does not have a need for comfortable video settings. -- (tm) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
"Thorsten Matzner" wrote in message ... "Robert H. Risch" wrote: I decided to try the "System Cache Boost" tweak, #9b at http://datacreek.net/webgear/tips/xptweaks.html . It reads, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed. If I understand "How to Optimize Windows NT Server Using the Registry" (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=232271) correctly and if this still applies to Windows XP you can simply change this setting in the Control Panel System Advanced Performance Settings Advanced without manually editing the Registry. The default setting is 0 what is recommended for machines that do not work as a server. You may want to change the setting and see if this leads to the same results. I would not be too surprised about that because a Server (for which the setting of 1 is the optimum) does not have a need for comfortable video settings. Yes, you can use that menu to change Memory usage from best performance for Programs to best performance for System cache. After rebooting you have the same problems as if you changed the registry key. Maybe that tweak worked with an earlier version of XP. One strange thing is that I couldn't fix things by changing the Memory usage option back to Programs. When I opened up the menu is was set to Programs as if I hadn't changed it. However rebooting again still left things with the crippled graphics, so I had to revert the drive, as before. Thanks for your help. RHR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
"Robert H. Risch" wrote:
Thanks for your help. You are welcome. I do not know why this does not work correctly on your computer, but maybe someone else has more experience with altering this setting. I never used it because I do not run a server here. -- (tm) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
"Thorsten Matzner" wrote in message ... "Robert H. Risch" wrote: Thanks for your help. You are welcome. I do not know why this does not work correctly on your computer, but maybe someone else has more experience with altering this setting. I never used it because I do not run a server here. I also would like to know if there is any truth to the assertion, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed". This doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the machine is used as a server. RHR |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
"Robert H. Risch" wrote:
I also would like to know if there is any truth to the assertion, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed". This doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not the machine is used as a server. See if this can help you on: "The LargeSystemCache Tuning Knob Now that you understand what the one tuning parameter available does, it seems appropriate to assess its usefulness. Under what circumstances should you change the default setting of LargeSystemCache? LargeSystemCache forces Windows 2000 to ignore the system working set where the file cache resides and look elsewhere when it needs to trim working sets. As described in the regentry.hlp documentation file, setting LargeSystemCache to 1 sets the system working set maximum in NT 4.0 to the size of RAM minus 4 MB--the designated target for the size of the Available Bytes pool. In Windows 2000, the system's maximum working set size is set to 80% of the size of real memory. Under the default value, when LargeSystemCache is set to 0, the system working set maximum is set to approximately 8 MB in both Windows 2000 and Windows NT. When set to 1, LargeSystemCache preserves and protects the file cache, which is considered part of the system working set, from page trimming. Turning the LargeSystemCache on forces Windows 2000 to trim excess pages from other process working sets. In the context of configuring a large Windows 2000 file server, setting LargeSystemCache to 1 may not be a bad idea. The regentry.hlp documentation file explains that both the Maximize Throughput for File Sharing and Maximize Throughput for Network Applications buttons set the value of the file server Size parameter to 3, which sets a large file server service working set. Presumably, the file Server service running in services.exe issues an appropriate call to SetProcessWorkingSetSize based on this Registry setting. In other words, the working set of the file Server service running in services.exe also must be protected from page trimming when the LargeSystemCache option is enabled. Remember that the file Server service uses the more efficient MDL Cache Manager Interface that stores file data in RAM only once. Meanwhile, the file Server service address space itself is also protected from excessive page trimming, while the file cache is allowed to expand until it fills the remainder of the system's memory. The problem is any other applications running on the server. If you are trying to configure a consolidated Windows 2000 Server running more than file and print services and LargeSystemCache is set to 1, the new behavior in Windows 2000 is to preserve 20% of RAM for other applications (including the file Server service running inside services.exe). If you are not careful, Windows 2000 may trim back the working sets of other applications too much with the LargeSystemCache setting in effect. Some applications may become slow and unresponsive due to excessive page stealing directed at them. If file cache activity heats up, there may be a noticeable delay when desktop applications are swapped back into memory following a period of inactivity. Due to high paging rates, any application that suffers a hard page fault may encounter delays at the busy paging disk. The fact that the file cache can map a maximum of 960 MB of RAM (or 512 MB in Windows NT) does establish an upper limit to the amount of memory the file cache will use, even when LargeSystemCache is set to 1. This limit suggests that when you configure a very large server with, say, 2 GB of RAM, setting the value of LargeSystemCache to 1 will not squeeze out other applications once the file cache grabs what it can. A final consideration is that server applications like MS SQL Server that make an explicit call to SetProcessWorkingSetSize to set their working set minimum and maximum are afforded a measure of protection from page trimming even when LargeSystemCache is set to 1. This drastic behavior of the LargeSystemCache parameter was modified in Windows 2000. Instead of increasing the system working set maximum to the size of RAM minus 4 MB, turning on the LargeSystemCache in Windows 2000 sets the system working set maximum to 80% of available RAM. The intent of this change is to dampen the extreme behavior of this tuning knob, making it easier for a system running with a LargeSystemCache to run some other mission-critical applications inside the same box. Unfortunately, reserving 20% of the remaining RAM for other applications is a purely arbitrary partitioning of available memory resources. It is not clear why the Windows 2000 developers are not willing to accept the inevitable and provide a more flexible tuning knob to specify the desired size of the file cache." ("Windows 2000 Performance Guide", ch. 7) -- (tm) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Performance Tweak that Failed
A lot of people use this tweak, but personally I found it to slow the system
down. The biggest difference I noticed with the LargeSystemCache setting ON (1), is that copying large files seemed to strain the system so much that using another program during the copy was difficult. When it's off, I can copy lots of files and still do other things without problem. I've always wondered why people used this tweak, but that's just a potential drawback for people to keep in mind. "Robert H. Risch" wrote in message ... I decided to try the "System Cache Boost" tweak, #9b at http://datacreek.net/webgear/tips/xptweaks.html . It reads, "Changing the value of the key LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1 will tell Windows XP to allocate all but 4MB of system memory to the file system cache, basically meaning that the XP Kernel can run in memory, greatly improving it's speed. The 4MB of memory left is used for disk caching, but if for any reason more is needed, XP allocates more. Generally, this tweak improves performance by a fair bit but can, in some intensive applications, degrade performance. As with the above tweak, you should have at least 256MB of RAM before attempting to enable LargeSystemCache". Since I have 768MB of RAM, this seemed okay to try. When I rebooted, the display was set to the lowest resolution and color depth and could not be modified by using display properties. Also the following message popped up, "Error loading C:\Winnt\System32\NvCpl.dll. A dynamic link library (DLL) initialization routine failed". I had no trouble reverting my hard drive to the previous state but I am curious to know why it didn't work. Has anybody else found that this tweak gives trouble? Thanks. RHR |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|