XP File Performance vs. default Program performance POST.

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

I want to ask the moderators out there to please review this thread and it's information.I believe this 'tweak' to be an incredible risk to your system, it's data, and users time. It is being pushed regardless that people in the IT business HAVE chimed in and stated their case with facts about the negative effect of this tweak. Certain people have ignored warnings about this 'time-bomb' and are pushing the tweak on to people who would try anything at this point for better frames. A lot of people are going to try this, and they are all going to remember that it was here at AVSIM that they were told to do so.Just to show the lack of knowledge behind this tweak, and the ignorance towards the potential problems, know that the LargeSystemCache setting in XP can still be taken advantage of without incident. There are several software packages out there that allow the setting to be used as long as the drivers are in place to manage memory in a different way from the regular XP way. Data is secure as well due to safe-writing to the drive on demand, as opposed to XP automatically writing when it becomes convenient. There are alternatives to this tweak, ways of getting the performance boost without the bomb.... yet instead of locating a solution here, users are simply trying to justify the tweak by blowing off warnings from people that do know better. A complete ignorance in my opinion.Remember, the ones that crash will remember what site had the info that led to it.... it doesn't need to be that way. I'm not talking about a 'Gestapo'like deletion of the threads just because.... I'm talking about replacing these threads with proper information and less enthusiasm in trying to get people to potentially destroy their systems.... heck I'll even sit and write a 10 minute tutorial on how to implement a larger cache PLUS keep it working safely over months or years.

[Guest baksteen33]

>>heck I'll even sit and write a 10 minute tutorial on how to implement a larger cache PLUS keep it working safely over months or years.<< Good idea, Kev. I agree with your call too. AFAIK, the following wasn't mentioned so far, a little power outage (or fluctuating voltages beyond certain tolerances) can cause havoc with this setting. Home computers running 24/7 will fail some day looking at the quality of our electrical grids. Guaranteed... At the default setting not much can go wrong. Maybe a reboot or a slow down, but no data corruption can occur. Kind regards Jaap

[Cruachan 705]

I bow to the experts...and, I confess, am feeling somewhat relieved at the same time!No offense, Mitch, but this is just too great a risk for the likes of me that uses his PC for everything including the kitchen sink. I don't need the hassle right now.Mike

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

For what it's worth, the setting by itself will not cause an immediate explosion or fire. What it does is render more of a possibility that data corruption will occur with every crash or system halt.... even program crashes on their own will cause significant damage to the OS over time.Think about it, were toying with a new sim that some people are having crash on a regular basis, other people trying graphic driver tweaks leading to the good old BSOD. All these factors, along with this 'new' tweak will accumulate corruption to the system part by part, and over time. The tweak causes small corruption errors everytime something negative happens to your system... you may not see it happen, it may take weeks.One day it will just fail to boot. No warning, no nothing. Why people are suggesting this tweak after all the evidence that has been brought fourth just shows how much those people really care for the community. I understand though, to be the 'one' who came up with the 'magic bullet' for FSX would render ones name in lights in the community, but this isn't a magic bullet... it's a ticking time-bomb waiting for a day to surprise you.Tonight I will write up and post the tutorial I had suggested. I am not sure whether it belongs in the Hardware forum or this one, but I'll post it here and let the moderators decide... generally speaking, the fact that the 'tweak' is out there means that the proper information should be available to as many as possible to prevent more and more people setting themselves up for a wreck weeks down the road. It is a software 'tweak' too, so I imagine that this is where it should reside, but as I mentioned, the moderators can decide where it best be kept.

[bob.bernstein 0]

<>I'd enjoy reading this. The dangers of ignoring theoretical risks because the now doesn't expose them can be devastating. However, if there was a no-risk way to get there....yes, that would be interesting.Best,Bob

[GaryGB 10]

Hi Kev:I will be interested in reading your tutorial, and also would hope to see more detail on the basis for your concerns.I do apreciate your caution, and the efforts you have made thus far to do so in a somewhat courteous manner.I also appreciate Mitch trying to bring another possible tweak to the masses, and enjoyed his consistent enthusiasm and apparent sincerity to try and help other users. I wish this discusssion would continue farther and get more into the specifics, with input from both Kev and Mitch as well as others who are willing to get into the heart of the matter so we can all draw some conclusions.There were several tweaks discussed in this thread, and I hope they will be subject to more investigation over time.I don't think it necessary for Mitch to feel offended, and withdraw from participation in this forum or this thread; he is advocating an option which we need to learn more about.If we need to also know that a quality battery backup should be used with one's PC to cover our butts, then lets get clear on that. If upon thorough research it is found that a power plug type of battery backup isn't enough to reduce risk of data loss from using a "write-behind" caching method (which I believe has been available via 3rd party caching applications since the days of DOS long before Windows started offering it inside the OS), so be it.Most high performance "Servers" (particularly those that use RAID drives) use memory caching controller cards which have onboard battery back ups designed to prevent loss of a write to one of the component RAID drives due to a system lag, OS hiccup or power blip. If that is what is needed to get better performance safely, lets get that clarified too.I'd like to see the dialog go the distance here; there is more to be learned for all of us on this, and I'd like to see Mitch involved as well as Kev and others with information based on both good external reference citations and personal experience.Here's hoping to see this through, since it shows some promise for those that are willing to implement any additional safety precautions which can be proven genuinely necessary.Kind Regards,GaryGB

[BrzI 26]

Looking forward to the write-up Kev :-)

[Guest baksteen33]

>>I also appreciate Mitch trying to bring another possible tweak to the masses, and enjoyed his consistent enthusiasm and apparent sincerity to try and help other users.<< Second that! :-) Good write-up, Gary. Cheers. Kind regards Jaap

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

I decided on more than a 10 minute tutorial :)I've designed a 5 page segment of my website to devote to the subject. However it will take time to get this all in order. For now though, you can read the initial two pages.The other software that can be used on it's own or in supplement to the 'tweak' is still being reviewed. I've never found the need to actually use these packages and thus only know that they exist. For me to write a decent tutorial I would probably be better off taking a day or so to play with these software packages and report based on my findings.I will get you guys a viable solution to this tweak's side-effects.... if you are unbelievably getting an FPS increase that even I can't understand, then we can't dispose of the fact. All we can do is make sure you have things in place to prevent any negative impact on stability really.You can check out where I'm at for now. Tomorrow I'll probably have the next two pages done, the final page a day later. If anything is missed or if anything is misleading or just flat out wrong, please feel free to correct me.... I'm speaking based on my own experiences with this tweak and not about what I've read about it or theoretics.... so some of it could be wrong.[a href=http://www.silicon-vision.com/gallery/largesystemcache.html" target="_blank]Link[/a] - note: the menu at the top refers to my photo blog, the one at the bottom of each page will keep you within this relevant section. Also, I read/write code for a living, grammar and spelling may elude me from time to time :) Kev

[Geofa 108]

Appreciate your knowledge and your webpage. I do have to report though-with the "bad" tweak-I am getting 12-13 fps with full autogen and everything else. I downloaded O & O clever cache-reset the "bad tweak" and my fps went to 3-6fps-and lots of blurries.Just reporting what I see-3.2 PIv, 3 gigs ram, nvidia 512 meg card.I have 4 computers at home-the one I use for Fs is pretty much for fs only. I am tempted to risk a possible reinstall in the future for the present performance gain which is considerable.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

Well, keep using the tweak then eh? The risk may be worthwhile to some, and to those I fully agree.... by all means try it out. My only concern was that the way this tweak was 'advertised', just about everyone with the FPS frustration was blindingly wanting to try it for themselves. All I want, is to make people aware.CleverCache and CacheBooster may not be viable options in the end, who knows. It takes a lot more than just installing something and running FSX to completely review the impact. There are specific settings that you will need to use with both of these programs to minimize the impact in system performance.Again though, it makes absolutely no sense as to why FPS would actually increase with this setting.... yet a few people have reported it as being that way. I'm not saying the results are not dependable, just that there hasn't been enough proper testing.I run my sim without any tweaks other than Fiber_Frame and Poolsize. I find that I can fly out of any city and not drop below 12FPS with most settings maxed out now. It took me a while to figure out the mesh settings, but once I got those to a point where they are not overkill, and not underpowered.With this tweak I notice ZERO impact in my system.... I'm using system monitor as well as other tools to monitor system wide activity and all I can say is that whether the tweak is active or not, I still get the same FPS. The only difference I get is that FSX was using 1.3GB of memory before the tweak, now it uses 8-900megs of ram, even after disabling the tweak.... don't know why.I should point out that not everyone is using the same mainboard, same hard disk controlers and same chipsets. I'm thinking the chipsets have a lot to do with the way in which XP plays with the ram.Here's something to try. For everyone who reports a change in FPS with this tweak, please state all system specs. Type of mainboard, mainboard driver details, graphics card and driver, memory and type of memory. Also state whether your running IDE or SATA. I'm willing to bet that increased FPS will be limited to people on similar hardware, we just have to identify that hardware.Kev

[Geofa 108]

Here are my specs (I don't know my motherboard or some of the other specifics you ask for):3.2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 HT (800 mhz FSB)512K full speed Cache3 megs pc400 ddr ram7600 Nividia GS 512k ram160GV ATA 133 7200rpm Hard driveWindows xp ProfessionalOnly tweaks I am using are fiber frame at .44 and pool size normal setting.This tweak adds about 6-7 fps to my system. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Vilk]

some quick observationsiirc, you turn off all autogen, right? also you set your ff high. this means you're very dependent on efficient processing of a large number of relatively large files--the texturesnow since you say you don't know your motherboard, i suspect you have your agp aperture still at the default seeting (32? 64?) and (possibly) your pci latency set relatively high--which might be bottlenecks quite effectively offset by a large file cachedon't shoot, just thinking... :-)ps. i tried a couple of cache tools and the "tweak" itself (which, btw, i do recognize as dangerous, having a decent comp sci background) for absolutely no performance gain. in fact the various "memory-safe" options forcing cache to disk at specific intervals were causing microstutter at precisely the intervals :-)

[Geofa 108]

Actually -I've run it both ways-and I pick up 6-7 fps in each case.I now get 30-40 without autogen and 12-25 with maxed autogen.I have my agp at the highest in the bios-if I recall at least 256 if not 512. As for the pci latency-you are now over my head.. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Capt Mac 0]

I would like to try this so if I create a restore point before I do and I get into trouble with data loss can I just go back to my new restore point and retrieve my lost or corrupted data or are there other risks that i missed.Intresting series of posts I have enjoyed the debate on this.Thanks for anyones answere on this.Capt.Mac