XP File Performance vs. default Program performance POST.

[Guest Vilk]

:-)i actually remembered after i wrote this that we have the same card. mine defaulted to a reasonable latency out of the box (unlike my previous ati cards)if you feel like tinkering with it, search latency tool on the forum. i don't have any quick links, sorry, was a while agops. your motherboard make and model are probably staring at you for a few seconds each time you boot up. then again, maybe not... :-)

[GaryGB 10]

>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.jpgHi Geofa:I thought you might find this info I posted on PCI Latency tweaks (on AGP mobos) interesting.There's a few others I scattered throughout SimFlight if you do a search.See: http://forums.simflight.com/viewtopic.php?...er=asc&start=15GaryGB

[GaryGB 10]

OOPS! (posting error)

[Geofa 108]

Thanks-I'll give it a look-appreciate it!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

Hi Mac.In order to fully restore a system that has suffered any amount of corruption, you would have to have a complete backup of all drives, and have made that backup prior to any changes that may have resulted in small levels of corruption.Basically, once corruption starts, the chance of more will increase, eventually to the point where something important for Windows is affected enough that it won't boot. System Restore doesn't back up all aspects of your OS or data files, therefore cannot be depended upon for recovery of the system in the event of a system failure.Your best bet is:- You use your machine for FSX only.- You have a reliable backup of all personal files already- You are comfortable with your knowledge of PC tech that you know you can get back to where your at with minimal effort.In each case, try the tweak. Otherwise, it's not recommended at all :(

[Guest OneTinSoldier]

>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.MacHi Mac and All,I want to let you all know that from personal experience I believe, there is the risk that this could indeed be a ticking time bomb. The real risk is that something will occur at some point where critical data does not get written back to disk, resulting in an inability to be able to log in and boot WinXP, period. A very long time ago when I tried this out I was not able to get logged in and WinXP would not finish booting in normal mode nor in safe mode. That means it would not have mattered if I had made a restore point or not. There are however reports of people being able to to get into safe mode and were able to change the setting back, and being back to normal after reinstalling their video driver. But I am just writing about my own personal experience here. So, here is the mesasage I received from my own experience when attempting to log in...WRITE_DELAY_ERROR Windows could not write to the file C:$MFT There is another option besides safe mode also, 'Restore From Last Known Good Configuration'. From my own experience, that was hosed too. Here is the message I received when trying to 'Restore From Last Known Good Configuration...The File C:WINDOWSsystem32configsystem is either missing or corruptI could be mistaken, but I believe that file IS the Windows Registry as used by the OS(and MFT = Master File Table, pretty important files!). Why it was unable to find a backup of that file if it was missing or corrupt I do not know, I only know that was what I got. The ONLY option left was to reinstall WinXP, from scratch of course. Or use an image if you have made one, from a utility such as Norton Ghost. I had to reinstall from scratch, but fortunately I had all my data and downloaded files backed up(burned to cd).Now let me back up a little. My own experience was that this tweak gave a big boost! It was a very long time ago and I cannot remember whether I received a big boost to FPS or just overall smoothness, but I think it was both really(smoothness comes with high fps). What I do recall is the the time bomb went off after just several days of having the tweak enabled. As I said, this was a very long time ago, back when I had 1 GB of RAM. I really do not know if having large amounts of RAM makes any difference as to whether or not write-back errors will occur or not. I have 2 GB's of RAM nowadays. Although I am very tempted to try this tweak again I am not willing to risk having to reinstall from scratch. I do not have Norton Ghost, if I did I might try it.Now, I want to say that this is not the first time this tweak has come up in this forum. I reported my experience with this tweak in a thread that 'very long time ago'. I dug the thread up and I give a link to it below. If you read it, notice the speculation with regards to people with a problem are the one's that only have 512 MB's of RAM, in one of the replies. Notice there are some people that were having all kinds of various problems with the 'System Cache' setting turned on. Notice that there are definitely people(myself included) that had to reinstall WinXP from scratch. My purpose in saying all this this and giving the link to the old thread below is not to try and start some kind of panic about using this setting, it is simply to attempt to inform people that there is, at least in my mind, the possibility of encountering problems.http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...31884&mode=fullHope that helps,Jim

[Jayjay 62]

Big John and dito,I think our friends over here are so busy debating that your question was overlooked.I am not a "specialist" like most of our debaters :( but I think that you have to open the system properties page - I am translating from french into english - (right click on MyComputer - Properties) and there you select the Advanced tab then Performance and again the Advanced tab. The second item on this page says in English something like Memory Utilisation. You have the choice between Programs and System Cache. I guess that's either Program Mode or File Mode.If I'm wrong, please, one of the debaters :( , correct me and give us the right way to do it. :-hmmm J.J.JJ StruyfBraine-L'AlleudBelgium

[Capt Mac 0]

thanks alot for the quick reply. i think i will not risk this for a few more fps. Capt.Mac

[NM5K 1]

>thanks alot for the quick reply. i think i will not risk this>for a few more fps. >Capt.MacOne thing....In general theory, this tweak should not effect frame rate at all. Not the true frame rate. It would be *very* unusual to see an actual frame rateincrease from any kind of ram or cache, etc change.What can change is the "apparant" frame rate. This willbe due to less pausing, etc. It's possible that the averagerate can go up, if the area stuttered a bit before. It is possible to reduce stutters with ram/cache tweaks.The only way a ram/cache etc setting would effect actualframe rate is if the CPU was allowed to devote more cycles or whatever to video. I don't really see this happening in this case. The only thing that will increase the true framerate in general are **CPU or video** changes. On past OS's, I've oft usually used the "server" setting,and I never realized there was any risk to it. I never reallyhad any serious problems, but maybe I was lucky. Out of curiousity, "I'll try anything once", I ran thatsetting on my XP box with only 1 gig of ram. Yes, I knowmost use 2-3-4 gigs in that instance, but I was just curiousto see if any change in FSX operation. In comparing the two, and doing careful tests using a freshclean startup flight for both, I found *no* difference in frame rate. Just as I expected. But I did see some instanceswhere I could tell XP was shuffling things around a bit different. I tried loading up KMIA, which is pretty meanon my machine. I did a test takeoff, and noted the frame rate, and also the loading and display of textures. Then I rebooted back to the "normal" XP setting and retested.The results? My box with only 1 gig actually ran better, and dealt with textures in the "normal" mode. It was quite obviousaround KMIA. In "normal" mode, I didn't have any less framerate, but I had less stuttering, and texture loading runoutproblems. Sooo... I can say for *my* P4 1 gig ram box, "Normal" was the best setting. I'm very sceptical of reports of actual frame rate increases.I don't doubt stuttering could be effected, and thus improvethe average rate, but not the true rate. IE: you can measure the true rate by comparing the fps you get at your startup flight, just sitting still, not doing anything. Also be aware that resetting a flight can showless a frame rate than a fresh startup flight. So you reallyshould restart it to be accurate.As an example, my startup flight might show say 28 fps at first run. But if I goof around a while, and than reset the same flight, it might only be 24 fps. But If I restart the sim, it will start back at it's normal 28. So either compareonly fresh starts, or only old starts.. I prefer to use the fresh start, cuz the sim is running new and fairly clean.On my box, changing that server setting had absolutely no effect on my actual frame rate. As well it shouldn't have.This is nothing new really. In the past, many people have thought just adding more ram could increase the frame rate.Nope... It doesn't change a thing. What it will do is reducestuttering, which in turn will lead to a higher average ratein areas that stuttered before. In an area that never stuttered to begin with, there should be no change at all. Anyway, I could care less how anyone wants to set their box.It's up to them. But I I'm leaving mine on normal, beingthe sim ran best that way on my box.BTW, I have two seperate XP systems on two HD's.. So I have an OS backup no problem. The reason I have to run two seperatesystems is FSX requires a new ATI video driver that won't work for my TV/Video capture. So I have to run an XP for FSX, andmy other "normal" XP for everything else. I choose which drive "C or D", is to be the boot drive in the BIOS setup.It's a PIA.. If I'm flying the sim, and decide to record TV, I gotta reboot, hit del, choose the drive, then finish rebooting.And visa versa for the sim.. Back and forth.. Whatta pain..MK

[Guest]

The best money I've ever spent was on True Image software. My HD image is automatically updated every evening as I sleep and I have restored the HD several times with no problems. This is the only reason I have tried the tweak, and I have to say I have gotten very good results with no problems to date.If for some reason I cannot reboot, I will just restore the last good image. I suggest either True Image or Norton Ghost to anyone who "tweaks" computers.PD

[Chase 303]

>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.Go for it. I understand where you're coming from. I don't see a real threat by this message though. Anyone would know that there is a filter between information and action. That is the brain... haha. If they don't know that it is their own fault for taking a risk, then they have a lot to learn.

[Guest baksteen33]

Hi Odaat, your post summons it very nicely, what a user should be capable of doing before applying this 'tweak'. Gary's post mentions the technical reason(s) without having to be an electrical engineer: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...id=371470&page=You'll probably agree that people who can't do what you can, should stay away from their cache settings. Well, I hope so! :-) Thanks and kind regards Jaap

[Guest 46th_Terror]

I really dont know squat about the technical end of this set of tweeks. I do know that I have been running these settings for over 3 years with absolutely no problems to speak of whatso ever.Quick question tho if my ram is 2.5 gig what size should me page file be? Right now I have 4096 locked on 2 drives making a total of 8190. should it all be on 1 drive or is it being on both fine?

[Guest n1g]

It is just hard for me to believe you have put this much time into saving people. My god, there is enough information here to allow folks to make up their own mind. Can we please move on. It sounds like the risk is losing a family member or something. Its a fricken computer. Who the heck cares anymore. Use it or dont use it. Move on and try to find another tweak or something. I am in IT and have been for years and I have never seen anyone get so worked up. Let em be.Bob

[Guest aspenleaf]

Thanks for the info, Kev. I did try this and it indeed increased my frame rates and made FSX run more smoothly. I have switched back to the program setting until I can Ghost my OS. Is it safe to set it to the system cache setting just for running FSX and then back to programs for everything else?I use the computer for graphics and music recording and don't want to lose any data.My system is: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe MB, Athlon 64 3000+ (o/c to 2.2 Ghz), 2 GB PQI Turbo DDR400 (2x1GB 3-4-4-8 1T)in dual channel, 3 Seagate IDE drives. Any suggestions for improving my drive performance, if that is the apparent bottleneck? I have the NForce drivers installed that automatically enable DMA. However, my C: drive is on the same IDE channel as an ATAPI DVD drive. Right now I am just experimenting with the FSX demo and I couldn't get it to install to a drive other than the C: drive.I have also added the fiber_frame tweak at .33Thanks for any advice.