Hello Jerry - ---------- > Lately, I've been experimenting with upper memory management under > PC DOS 5.02 using EMM386.EXE, then trying QEMM 386 V.6.02 without > EMM386.EXE. Although I was impressed with the technical knowledge > and loops and hoops that allow one to maximize the amount of RAM > available for loading high all manners of devices, etc., and get > a lot of conventional memory free for use by other programs, I was > somewhat disappointed to notice that this memory juggling did not > improve the overall speed of the computer system.
Upper memory managers are not going to improve speed, it's not what they do. Speed increases would only be when an entire program can be loaded into memory. In the old days they had to write OVL (overlay) files and load/unload pieces of the program if it did not fit within the 640k limitation. Without the loading/unloading those programs appear faster, they aren't. :-\ > In any case, I > discovered that, on a 386SX IBM clone with 1024K RAM utilizing > SMARTDRV in a 256k cache of the available extended 384k memory, I > achieved way more performance speed with programs than using QEMM > with almost all of the 640k of conventional memory free. QEXT.SYS works more effectively on a 1 meg legacy box (it's smaller therefore leaves more memory for other things). Smartdrv v4.2 is the better version, did you use that one? Even a "smartdrv 64 64" will improve performance a great deal. There is a test suite somewhere at the Arachne browser site that will help you determine the optimum settings for smartdrive and FILES and BUFFERS within config.sys. I gained a 30% increase after using this test suite on my `386. :-) DOSMax is another option linked to at my tech website on the TWEAKS page. > Speed > tests indicate that using memory managers apparently takes quite > a lot of CPU work, slowing it down and reducing the speed of the > Dhrystones/second (slightly), Double-Precision Kilowhetstones > (about 20% or more) and Double-Precision MFLOPS (about 50% less > speed!). Yes, it would to that. > Can any of you folks experienced with memory management techniques > offer suggestions that I'm overlooking? What's the advantage of > gaining more memory to run programs, if it tends to overwork > your system and slow it down anyway? Having the entire program loaded into memory at one time. Not much else really. Your optimum setup will vary depending on your hardware, hard drive speed, and what OS you intend to be using. Check my TWEAKS page at my tech website. What is not mentioned there is not there because it's unstable or only offers minimal improvement. (my opinion) Charles.Angelich DOS the Ghost in the Machine! Family And Friends wepages - Multimedia orginal stories with animation and sound, poetry, music, and photography: http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf Tech pages for DOS and W31 at: http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
