OS 3.1 + Apollo 1260 - Strange Behaviour/Issue

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by rabidgerry

Think I have been getting mixed up with MuFastRom and MuMapRom. So MuMapRom wasn't installed. Which one should I use? Or do I need them both?

Well, MuFastRom will put your physical Kickstart ROM chip into FastRAM.
Whereas MuMapRom will load A ROM into FastRAM from a file instead (I don't think you'll be wanting to do this as it wouldn't make sense without a dual boot setup or similar...more mucking about and this is not what you need right now).

[rabidgerry]

There is nothing relating to MuFastRom in the startup and no mention of this from the guide I was reading. Unless I am to assume that the commands it mentions are to be added to startup sequence? The only thing I saw that was to be directly added to startup sequence was MuFastRom PROTECT ON. So I added this.

When I double click the icon in workbench it states it is already running. I can then turn it off using the tool types. If I turn it off I get 0.40 kickspeed. If I turn it back on I get 0.12 kickspeed. If I put the tooltypes back to default which is On and then reboot and run kickspeed test again I get the 0.12 reading again. So it seems to be coming on by itself. But I don't know how as there is nothing in my startup-sequence that states it is being turned on.

****edit***** My startup is a few pages back, have a look and see if you can see anything that might be putting rom into fast ram. As I mentioned before the only thing I have added to startup-sequence is the command PROTECT ON for MuFastRom.

[crazyc]

Although I have no experience of this particular command I suspect that what you have added to the startup is running the command just with a particular option, which is how your physical rom is being mapped.

[crazyc]

Also check the user startup.

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by crazyc

Although I have no experience of this particular command I suspect that what you have added to the startup is running the command just with a particular option, which is how your physical rom is being mapped.

No problem CrazyC.

So you mean it could be activated by MuMaprom by itself and then PROTECT is selecting an option? The PROTECT option is to prevent "buggy" programs from erasing the rom from fast mem.

CrazyC, have you experience replacing your Amiga badge? I think it's time I put that nice new one on that you gave me The one that says 060 on it

[crazyc]

The badge is literally just stuck on with the sticky pad on the back if I remember correctly. Just peel off the cover.

And yes re the rom mapping I suspect that is what is happening, but keep in mind I don't really know what I am talking about with the apollo stuff.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by rabidgerry

There is nothing relating to MuFastRom in the startup and no mention of this from the guide I was reading. Unless I am to assume that the commands it mentions are to be added to startup sequence? The only thing I saw that was to be directly added to startup sequence was MuFastRom PROTECT ON. So I added this.

When I double click the icon in workbench it states it is already running. I can then turn it off using the tool types. If I turn it off I get 0.40 kickspeed. If I turn it back on I get 0.12 kickspeed. If I put the tooltypes back to default which is On and then reboot and run kickspeed test again I get the 0.12 reading again. So it seems to be coming on by itself. But I don't know how as there is nothing in my startup-sequence that states it is being turned on.

****edit***** My startup is a few pages back, have a look and see if you can see anything that might be putting rom into fast ram. As I mentioned before the only thing I have added to startup-sequence is the command PROTECT ON for MuFastRom.

Forgive me for being a bit confused. No, there's nothing in your startup-sequence on Page 2 that maps the ROM to FastRAM. You are saying that you have added it yourself though since(?), and the PROTECT ON is an argument for the command MuFastRom - so it's wholly part of that and nothing separate. You can get a list of possible arguments for commands my typing the command followed by a question mark, such as 'cpu ?' , 'list ?' or 'multiview ?' - Try it in a shell (CLI) and you'll see all the options.
If you added the PROTECT ON to MuFastRom, then when you installed MMULibs it must have added MuFastRom itself because it wouldn't normally be there, it would normally reside on Aminet in a snug lha archive.
It's fine for you to have added the PROTECT ON option/argument, so nothing is wrong there, and the 0.12 compared with the slow (off) 0.4 must be okay too I'd say. That's how you know it's working, you get the faster reading (0.12).

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by paul1981

Forgive me for being a bit confused. No, there's nothing in your startup-sequence on Page 2 that maps the ROM to FastRAM. You are saying that you have added it yourself though since(?), and the PROTECT ON is an argument for the command MuFastRom - so it's wholly part of that and nothing separate. You can get a list of possible arguments for commands my typing the command followed by a question mark, such as 'cpu ?' , 'list ?' or 'multiview ?' - Try it in a shell (CLI) and you'll see all the options.
If you added the PROTECT ON to MuFastRom, then when you installed MMULibs it must have added MuFastRom itself because it wouldn't normally be there, it would normally reside on Aminet in a snug lha archive.
It's fine for you to have added the PROTECT ON option/argument, so nothing is wrong there, and the 0.12 compared with the slow (off) 0.4 must be okay too I'd say. That's how you know it's working, you get the faster reading (0.12).

@Paul1981 May be I confused you sorry

Right so what I was saying was, there is nothing in my startup that is MuFastrom related other than that command MuFastRom Protect ON. I put that in there as per the guide. Initially I got it wrong as I didn't do the path correctly so I left out this bolded bit SYS:MuTools/MuFastRom Protect On

This was making it not boot so I was having to comment it out. Once I added the path bit SYS:MuTools/ in it allowed me to boot.

Now to me that did not seem as though that one command activated MuFastRom but just added protection if it WAS enabled. I thought I'd need to add something else. May be I am wrong???

Still not convinced Although it does seem to be on when I run the kickspeed test.

So lets compare kickspeeds to see. What is your kickspeed?

Actually here is a better idea, what is in your startup sequence that relates to MuFastRom?

Another question, should I have that way at the stop of my startup? I have it below setpatch at the minute somewhere in the middle.

[daxb]

Same here. A bit confused about what you have done. What is (not) running. What works or not. And more important what do you want. What is your goal?

Did you really read the MuFastRom guide? It only remaps KickROM to fastRAM, nothing more nothing less. I thought you want to map a ROM file. For this there is MuMapRom but if you read the guide it says more or less, don't use me (permanent).

Btw. not always but in most cases a ROM re-mapper work reset resident. What means that a soft reset do not remove it from fastram. Instead of a hard reset (power off for at least 10 seconds or a reset tool that can do a hard reset) what will remove the ROM from fastram.

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by daxb

Same here. A bit confused about what you have done. What is (not) running. What works or not. And more important what do you want. What is your goal?

Did you really read the MuFastRom guide? It only remaps KickROM to fastRAM, nothing more nothing less. I thought you want to map a ROM file. For this there is MuMapRom but if you read the guide it says more or less, don't use me (permanent).

Btw. not always but in most cases a ROM re-mapper work reset resident. What means that a soft reset do not remove it from fastram. Instead of a hard reset (power off for at least 10 seconds or a reset tool that can do a hard reset) what will remove the ROM from fastram.

@daxb

If you go back and I read previous post I got confused myself with MuFastRom and MuMapRom. So currently the only thing I'm trying is the MuFastRom.

Did I really read the MuFastRom guide? Yes.

And after I realised I was getting mixed up between MuFastRom and MuMapRom I went and had a look at the MuMapRom guide and yes it describes it as a horrible program. Not quite sure why it includes it in the package to be honest if it has more negatives than positives.

What am I trying to do? I'm trying to maximize the performance of my Apollo 1260.

Btw. not always but in most cases a ROM re-mapper work reset resident. What means that a soft reset do not remove it from fastram. Instead of a hard reset (power off for at least 10 seconds or a reset tool that can do a hard reset) what will remove the ROM from fastram.

Yes this was the same for ACATool. When I booted, then used ACATool and picked a rom file, and then rebooted, the rom file was not mapped. I would need to power down and do a proper cold boot. Then when it was remapped to the rom I have chosen from file in my devs/kickstarts it would remain their. Quite a handy tool for those ACA accelerators.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by rabidgerry

@Paul1981 May be I confused you sorry

Right so what I was saying was, there is nothing in my startup that is MuFastrom related other than that command MuFastRom Protect ON. I put that in there as per the guide. Initially I got it wrong as I didn't do the path correctly so I left out this bolded bit SYS:MuTools/MuFastRom Protect On

This was making it not boot so I was having to comment it out. Once I added the path bit SYS:MuTools/ in it allowed me to boot.

Now to me that did not seem as though that one command activated MuFastRom but just added protection if it WAS enabled. I thought I'd need to add something else. May be I am wrong???

Still not convinced Although it does seem to be on when I run the kickspeed test.

So lets compare kickspeeds to see. What is your kickspeed?

Actually here is a better idea, what is in your startup sequence that relates to MuFastRom?

Another question, should I have that way at the stop of my startup? I have it below setpatch at the minute somewhere in the middle.

In my startup-sequence it is the line directly below SetPatch, and it just says 'MuFastRom' without the quotes. It's better being at the top as the whole boot process will benefit from the extra speed of the ROM now being faster.

My MuFastRom resides in C: for simplicity's sake, but you can check this yourself by opening a Shell (CLI) and typing 'which mufastrom' without the quotes. It will then print to the screen the path of that command if it is in your command path. If it doesn't find MuFastRom it means it's not in your command path and it won't print anything. As long as you know where it is and can locate it yourself (like you have done...it's in SYS:MuTools) then that's okay too. I'll check kickspeed next time I boot her up, some point today just for you probably.

You see, when you added the SYS:MuTools/ it could then find the command and run it, whereas before it couldn't find it (because the command path at this point in the startup-sequence is SYS: and C: only, so only those places are searched (for commands without exact paths specified). Making sense yet? If you look further down the startup-sequence there is a command called Path which adds further paths to be searched. This lets you type things like 'Clock' and 'WBPattern' and actually have them load from the Shell/CLI without you specifying the path to them.

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by paul1981

In my startup-sequence it is the line directly below SetPatch, and it just says 'MuFastRom' without the quotes. It's better being at the top as the whole boot process will benefit from the extra speed of the ROM now being faster.

My MuFastRom resides in C: for simplicity's sake, but you can check this yourself by opening a Shell (CLI) and typing 'which mufastrom' without the quotes. It will then print to the screen the path of that command if it is in your command path. If it doesn't find MuFastRom it means it's not in your command path and it won't print anything. As long as you know where it is and can locate it yourself (like you have done...it's in SYS:MuTools) then that's okay too. I'll check kickspeed next time I boot her up, some point today just for you probably.

You see, when you added the SYS:MuTools/ it could then find the command and run it, whereas before it couldn't find it (because the command path at this point in the startup-sequence is SYS: and C: only, so only those places are searched (for commands without exact paths specified). Making sense yet? If you look further down the startup-sequence there is a command called Path which adds further paths to be searched. This lets you type things like 'Clock' and 'WBPattern' and actually have them load from the Shell/CLI without you specifying the path to them.

OH I know about the paths etc, that is why I added that in there. I was reading the guide you see and in some instances in the guides for MMU he actually lists the path. For example when I was doing that whole setpatch patch business, his instructions listed c:setpatch and a few other instances of some file pacthery going on. So by the time I got the MuFastRom guide on the go and the only instruction I got from the installation part was MuFastRom PROTECTED ON I literally took that as it was and typed it in without realising I needed to point the instruction to the where the program was situated same as the other 2 things I have managed to add to my startup-sequence successfully.

Anyways I realised that after and added the path in and it booted so I realised I must have done something right.

Appreciate the kickspeed time result for me

I will stick MuFastRom PROTECTED ON near the top then.

****edit**** thanks for this though, it's handy to know as sometimes I have to go into dopus to look

'which mufastrom'

actually all this is useful too

You see, when you added the SYS:MuTools/ it could then find the command and run it, whereas before it couldn't find it (because the command path at this point in the startup-sequence is SYS: and C: only, so only those places are searched (for commands without exact paths specified). Making sense yet? If you look further down the startup-sequence there is a command called Path which adds further paths to be searched. This lets you type things like 'Clock' and 'WBPattern' and actually have them load from the Shell/CLI without you specifying the path to them.

[paul1981]

Look at the bottom of your first page of your startup-sequence and the top of page 2, what is underneath SetPatch? C:CPU60 B. This is what is probably mapping your ROM into FastRAM!

I was just about to say put your MuFastRom line right there below that SetPatch.

So as we suspected, something was already doing it. You can comment that line out by putting a ; before it. So...

;C:CPU B will make the line be skipped and 'CPU B' will thus not run. Test it, comment it out and see what happens.

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by paul1981

Look at the bottom of your first page of your startup-sequence and the top of page 2, what is underneath SetPatch? C:CPU60 B. This is what is probably mapping your ROM into FastRAM!

I was just about to say put your MuFastRom line right there below that SetPatch.

So as we suspected, something was already doing it. You can comment that line out by putting a ; before it. So...

;C:CPU B will make the line be skipped and 'CPU B' will thus not run. Test it, comment it out and see what happens.

That is where I had it, just below setpatch.

Of course when I moved it there for an experiment I got an error saying MufastRom needs to below setpatch at bootup so moved it back to where I had it.

So you think C:CPU60 B is mapping my rom?

Not disagreeing here but I am just mentioning that in the Apollo manual it just states that CPU60 B is for "best configuration".

So you think this might be mapping rom? I will take it out and see what happens but I'm not sure that is doing it purely on the basis that the Apollo then has RemApollo which is meant to do the rom mapping and of course I have not touched RemApollo.

I'll comment it out and see.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by rabidgerry

So you think C:CPU60 B is mapping my rom?

No, it is as I just tested this myself. If CPU60 B is invoked after SetPatch it remaps the ROM into FastRAM. Just comment the line out to bypass it by putting a ; before it.

I get 0.12 - 0.14 with the kickspeed test so nothing wrong there.

[rabidgerry]

Well you may phone Mulder and Scully for this one mate
I commented both CPU60 and MuFastRom out of the startup altogether. I still got the same speed in kickspeed. 0.12 I did a cold boot as well just in case.


Currently building a new power supply not that I need it just yet. But once I'm finished I will test it again.

But I swear I commented both out and got the same reading in Kickspeed.

[paul1981]

Originally Posted by rabidgerry

Well you may phone Mulder and Scully for this one mate

I commented both CPU60 and MuFastRom out of the startup altogether. I still got the same speed in kickspeed. 0.12 I did a cold boot as well just in case.
But I swear I commented both out and got the same reading in Kickspeed.

You never know, either of them could be an Amiga expert.
The only other places to look are WBStartup or User-Startup. User-Startup is in S: too, just like the Startup-Sequence. How cold is your cold boot? Give it 5 seconds to be sure.

[rabidgerry]

Originally Posted by paul1981

You never know, either of them could be an Amiga expert.
The only other places to look are WBStartup or User-Startup. User-Startup is in S: too, just like the Startup-Sequence. How cold is your cold boot? Give it 5 seconds to be sure.

I wasn't being cheeky there BTW just in case

My cold boot is 10 seconds+

Gonna try it here with both commented out again just to make total sure. Amiga is off right now and has been for an hour or two so that's a cold enough boot for sure.


If it still seems I'm getting fastish speed in kickspeed I'll look in userstartup (something I've never dabbled in at all btw)

[rabidgerry]

Well found the culprit. I can safely say it was not me who added this in to the userstartup so it must have been added in when using the MuTools installer.



This is the result after I comment this out

Big Tony say's it's 0.50 seconds with it commented out



Ok say I have commented it back in and also commented back in CPU60 B.

Should I also comment back in the MuFastRom in startup sequence? Or just remove it since it is in the userstartup?

I noticed another line in the userstartup that says Begin MuFastRom. I did not add that either. It is weird that it still works even that Begin MuFastRom is commented out.

[paul1981]

Keep the C:CPU60 B commented out.

You have to decide whether you want the MuFastRom to be run from the Startup-Sequence below SetPatch or whether you leave it where it is in the User-Startup. The same with the next line too 'MuFastZero'

On my setup, those two are below SetPatch and look like this:

C:SetPatch QUIET
MuFastRom ON
MuFastZero FASTEXEC MOVESSP ON

You should also make your MuFastZero have those options too as you'll get a bit more speed.