Mounting real CF eats up a lot of RAM - Page 3

Amiga1992 · 03 January 2014, 16:11

Hey Thomas,
Here are the RDB files you requested!
Hopefully this sheds some more light on the subject.

Amiga1992 · 04 January 2014, 17:57

I am running another card in my other A600 (which as an ACA620), a 1GB Sandisk card, and it's eating up less memory than this setup. It gets loaded in Fast RAM, but it's only about 130K! Also with PFS3, but I think I set up this one using HDInstTools instead, if that makes any difference.

Amiga1992 · 20 February 2014, 20:32

Any clue, anybody, about this problem? It's been bugging me.

thomas · 20 February 2014, 22:11

I don't know why I didn't reply to this thread. I am quite sure that I examined your RDB. And I remember well that you've still configured 30 buffers although you were asked to try 29 or 31 buffers. I tried this 30 = 150 thing and it is true. If 30 buffers are configured, PFS3 uses 150 instead. You save a lot of memory if you configure 50 or 60 buffers for example.

Amiga1992 · 21 February 2014, 00:28

And I am an idiot, I missed that message from Toni!
I will change that. Does changing buffers wipe the whole hard drive?
Should I set 29 or 50?

Toni Wilen · 21 February 2014, 08:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

Does changing buffers wipe the whole hard drive?
Should I set 29 or 50?

Buffers can be safely changed but only IF you use same partitioning tool, never ever mix them! (hdtoolbox vs hdinsttools)

Try 29 first.

fitzsteve · 21 February 2014, 09:09

See post:

http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=930724&postcount=36

I already tried with 31 buffers

And 3.1's toolbox resulted in less memory usage than when I prepared the drive exactly the same way with OS3.9's toobox. Why would this be?

Toni Wilen · 21 February 2014, 09:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitzsteve

And 3.1's toolbox resulted in less memory usage than when I prepared the drive exactly the same way with OS3.9's toobox. Why would this be?

Different geometry values? Block size?

fitzsteve · 21 February 2014, 09:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

Different geometry values? Block size?

I used 512 block size in both cases, I let both toolboxes read the geometry automatically, would they normally detect different info?

Toni Wilen · 21 February 2014, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitzsteve

I used 512 block size in both cases, I let both toolboxes read the geometry automatically, would they normally detect different info?

It can be different. Geometry is virtual and different versions of hdtoolbox may generate different geometry values.

Physical geometry only existed in floppies and XT drives and older.

thomas · 21 February 2014, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas

I don't know why I didn't reply to this thread. I am quite sure that I examined your RDB. And I remember well that you've still configured 30 buffers although you were asked to try 29 or 31 buffers. I tried this 30 = 150 thing and it is true. If 30 buffers are configured, PFS3 uses 150 instead. You save a lot of memory if you configure 50 or 60 buffers for example.

Furthermore you use a rather strange identifier of "DODO" (0x444f444f) for PFS3. This shouldn't make a difference, but it looks weird.

Also the SSD1 partition has a wrong MaxTransfer value of 0x1fe0 (should be 0x1fe00 or 0x20000).

Amiga1992 · 21 February 2014, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomas

Furthermore you use a rather strange identifier of "DODO" (0x444f444f) for PFS3. This shouldn't make a difference, but it looks weird.

Also the SSD1 partition has a wrong MaxTransfer value of 0x1fe0 (should be 0x1fe00 or 0x20000).

In my partition you mean? Damnit. I thought I did it correctly.
I'll have to redo all these CFs.

Toni Wilen · 21 February 2014, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

In my partition you mean? Damnit. I thought I did it correctly.
I'll have to redo all these CFs.

Maxtransfer (and anything related to filesystems) can be also safely changed without losing data.

Leffmann · 21 February 2014, 17:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

Buffers can be safely changed but only IF you use same partitioning tool, never ever mix them! (hdtoolbox vs hdinsttools)

What's the technical explanation to this? And which of the two programs is to be blamed?

thomas · 21 February 2014, 17:57

HDInstTools is the only tool which misbehaves. It insists of its own internally calculated geometry and deletes all partitons which do not match it. *NEVER* click on Save in HDInstTools without double-checking everything.

Amiga1992 · 21 February 2014, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

Maxtransfer (and anything related to filesystems) can be also safely changed without losing data.

But all teh files in it will be corrupted, this problem occurred with WHDLoad, after Maxtransfer was changed, copying everything again was the only option to make WHDLoad games run again.

fitzsteve · 21 February 2014, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

But all teh files in it will be corrupted, this problem occurred with WHDLoad, after Maxtransfer was changed, copying everything again was the only option to make WHDLoad games run again.

Indeed it wont magically fix data that was corrupted during transfer however if the files were transferred in WinUAE with uae's scsi.device then you would be ok

Toni Wilen · 01 March 2014, 10:24

What if you only use single partition? Do you get much more free RAM? Any difference between 3.x and 2.x ROMs?

I checked PFS3 sources again (Preparing to release next update of PFS3AIO) and didn't find anything that could take 10s of kilobytes of RAM except number of buffers.

Or if for some reason filesystem is loaded multiple times (one for each partition) but that shouldn't happen. (If using WinUAE: boot, enter debugger with shift+f12, type TO<return>, both partition's "Seg" value should be same)

thomas · 01 March 2014, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akira

But all teh files in it will be corrupted, this problem occurred with WHDLoad, after Maxtransfer was changed, copying everything again was the only option to make WHDLoad games run again.

Files are only corrupted if MaxTransfer is too high. Your value is too small. This increases overhead and thus reduces speed, but it does not corrupt files.

Amiga1992 · 03 March 2014, 23:55

OK fixed the maxtransfer and changed the buffer.
Although 50 reduced 200KB, 29 worked best.
The system now boot with 380K used and about 308K with only one partition.

Is it at all possible to reduce this further?
Thanks for all your help guys.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mounting of real hard disk doesn't work anymore	mikro	support.WinUAE	6	13 May 2012 18:44
mapROM eats too much RAM	alphonsus	support.Hardware	9	10 July 2008 01:16
differences in ram consuming winuae vs real 1200	_ThEcRoW	support.WinUAE	9	02 May 2006 13:01
Mounting .adf in RAM	lauri_t	project.ClassicWB	9	30 April 2005 22:10
Mounting ADF files as disks on real amiga	dkovacs	support.Apps	5	08 April 2005 16:57

04 January 2014, 17:57	#42
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	I am running another card in my other A600 (which as an ACA620), a 1GB Sandisk card, and it's eating up less memory than this setup. It gets loaded in Fast RAM, but it's only about 130K! Also with PFS3, but I think I set up this one using HDInstTools instead, if that makes any difference.

20 February 2014, 20:32	#43
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	Any clue, anybody, about this problem? It's been bugging me.

20 February 2014, 22:11	#44
thomas Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 7,005	I don't know why I didn't reply to this thread. I am quite sure that I examined your RDB. And I remember well that you've still configured 30 buffers although you were asked to try 29 or 31 buffers. I tried this 30 = 150 thing and it is true. If 30 buffers are configured, PFS3 uses 150 instead. You save a lot of memory if you configure 50 or 60 buffers for example.

21 February 2014, 00:28	#45
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	And I am an idiot, I missed that message from Toni! I will change that. Does changing buffers wipe the whole hard drive? Should I set 29 or 50?

21 February 2014, 09:09	#47
fitzsteve Professional slacker! Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Kent, UK Age: 44 Posts: 6,683	See post: http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=930724&postcount=36 I already tried with 31 buffers And 3.1's toolbox resulted in less memory usage than when I prepared the drive exactly the same way with OS3.9's toobox. Why would this be?

21 February 2014, 17:57	#55
thomas Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 7,005	HDInstTools is the only tool which misbehaves. It insists of its own internally calculated geometry and deletes all partitons which do not match it. NEVER click on Save in HDInstTools without double-checking everything.

01 March 2014, 10:24	#58
Toni Wilen WinUAE developer Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland Age: 49 Posts: 26,534	What if you only use single partition? Do you get much more free RAM? Any difference between 3.x and 2.x ROMs? I checked PFS3 sources again (Preparing to release next update of PFS3AIO) and didn't find anything that could take 10s of kilobytes of RAM except number of buffers. Or if for some reason filesystem is loaded multiple times (one for each partition) but that shouldn't happen. (If using WinUAE: boot, enter debugger with shift+f12, type TO<return>, both partition's "Seg" value should be same)

03 March 2014, 23:55	#60
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,646	OK fixed the maxtransfer and changed the buffer. Although 50 reduced 200KB, 29 worked best. The system now boot with 380K used and about 308K with only one partition. Is it at all possible to reduce this further? Thanks for all your help guys.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)