WinUAE detecting and making use of the swap file

[seuden]

Originally Posted by killergorilla

Life is too short for this kind of crap

+1

[whiteb]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

@TCD
Precisely. I created a new page / swap file on the partition where WinUAE is running (again, a non-C one) and I am left wondering whether WinUAE will use it or not. e.g. I don't think creating a page / swap file on a 100% data partition brings anything in terms of performance.

You do the maths from Nanoseconds (Ram) to Milliseconds (HDD) dude........

1ns, is to ONE SECOND, what 1ms is to 37 years. Now you tell us if there is going to be any Performance impact with a program using Swap/Page over Physical Ram ?

Think WinUAE will benefit ? Swap Files (Sorry, Page Files), Sorry Swap Files, (Sorry Page files) only give an overall boost in available ram, but Swap files are what, 10,000 times slower than physical ram ?

(I am gonna cop this elsewhere for saying this).., what Frame rate do you think Crysis would run at if you gave it 2GB of Swap/Page instead of 1GB/2GB of Graphics card memory ?

[killergorilla]

600 fps.

[Maccara]

Originally Posted by killergorilla

600 fps.

Yes, just tested that. Wish I could move the whole OS to swap - would be even better.

[NewDeli]

Maybe use of page file could be limited to AmigaOS hard disk (FFS based) operations then ?

@whiteb
I will be in a better position to reply when I get myself a DirectX 11 R5x gfx card as my 4850 only bears 0.5 GB !
This said, I assume some games make better use of Windows limitations / flaws in the way virtual memory is handled. Also, I believe a few gamers considered switching to Vista / 7 was not worth the trouble because of those significant (sorry KG) differences
but as TCD says, it might be pointless to extensively debating over it here.

[haps]

Bwhahaha! No need to read the replies, the OP made my day and made me spit beer all over the monitor.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

Maybe use of page file could be limited to AmigaOS hard disk (FFS based) operations then ?

No difference whatsoever to using 'normal' HD space. It seems to me you're struggling with the concept of virtual memory/pagefiles here.

[Maccara]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

Maybe use of page file could be limited to AmigaOS hard disk (FFS based) operations then ?

This makes absolutely no sense.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

Maybe use of page file could be limited to AmigaOS hard disk (FFS based) operations then ?

Could you please explain why?

[NewDeli]

@haps
At the age of 2, you're much too young to drink beer ! Just wait 'till you're 1 and it should be OK.

@StingRay
Are you interested to know or just baiting the non-coder in me ? Mmmmh, hard to tell...
Anyway, I just thought as FFS is slow, its speed could be emulated more accurately (VS other loading operations) if the page file was used instead of RAM.

Last attempt to make something out of this half-p'wed thread :
What about replacing FFS with SFS as it is apparently faster and more efficient ?

[TCD]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

What about replacing FFS with SFS as it is apparently faster and more efficient ?

You can do that already.
Btw : This thread is not 'pwned'. It's just utterly pointless

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

@StingRay
Are you interested to know or just baiting the non-coder in me ? Mmmmh, hard to tell...

I just wanted to find sense in your question thus I asked.

Originally Posted by NewDeli

Anyway, I just thought as FFS is slow, its speed could be emulated more accurately (VS other loading operations) if the page file was used instead of RAM.

I'm sorry but all I can say: WTF!

[AmigaFriend]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

What about replacing FFS with SFS as it is apparently faster and more efficient ?

Ditch both. Use only PFS, you can see a much improved performance.

[NewDeli]

Originally Posted by xpect

Use only PFS, you can see a much improved performance.

Wow, glad to notice useful replies come when they are the least xpect'd . Now, I have to find a "try before you buy" version and attempt to use it in conjunction with latest WinUAE.


@StingRay
Maybe so, at the same time you don't seem too concerned about providing some helpful guidance about salvaging my initial request from the "utterly pointless" moniker. If there's nothing redeeming about paging file usage in the context of emulating the miggy, then it could be wiser to just let it be, couldn't it ?

[killergorilla]

I think I'll at least laugh for a little bit longer.

[TCD]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

@StingRay
Maybe so, at the same time you don't seem too concerned about providing some helpful guidance about salvaging my initial request from the "utterly pointless" moniker.

I wonder why

[thomas]

Ok, please take this reply serious as it is meant to be:

Originally Posted by NewDeli

Hi,


Could it be possible for WinUAE to detect and make use of the swap file ?
I noticed some PC game (Mechwarrior IV, presumably) issues a warning when it doesn't detect any swap file upon setup (on a non-c partition). Of course, it's still possible to play this game without any swap file, but I assume performance is slightly degraded.

Your assumption is wrong. I suppose that the game installer complained about the swap file being on the system partitition rather than on another one. Page file on the system partition can degrade performance, if paging is necessary.

However, necessary paging means degradation of overall performance. As pointed out already, using disk space instead of RAM makes things *slow*. Harddisk access is more than tenthousend times *slower* than RAM access.

The goal is to avoid paging by all means. So if you see your system being paging you should buy a new RAM module rather than create a new page file.

Similarly, I figured out WinUAE detecting the swap file on the partition on which it runs and using it to improve overall performance.

Already said it: you should *avoid* any usage of a page file if possible. Adding a page file does not change performance if paging is not necessary. If paging is necessary, performance is already degraded, no matter where the page file is stored.

Maybe use of page file could be limited to AmigaOS hard disk (FFS based) operations then ?

Would make things slower. Using page files makes things slower, no matter what it's used for.

A page file is used to store contents of unused RAM if more memory is needed than RAM exists. If you have enough RAM, no page file is needed. If you don't have enough RAM, it does not matter what the page file is used for, it will be slow.

If you had tried something out already and compared using a HDF verus using a real Amiga harddrive, then you had noticed that Windows already caches most part of the HDF in memory for speed. Using a HDF is really very much faster than using a real harddrive.

Using the page file for caches instead of RAM would again make things much slower (more than tenthousand times, you remember).

What about replacing FFS with SFS as it is apparently faster and more efficient ?

FFS is in Amiga's ROM, SFS isn't. You cannot replace FFS by SFS easily.

You can, however, choose from any existing file system when emulating a hard drive in "real harddrive" mode, i.e. using a real hard drive or a HDF with "RDB mode" enabled.

Ditch both. Use only PFS, you can see a much improved performance.

Same as above. The Amiga default file system cannot be replaced, but at the point where you can choose between FFS or SFS, you can select PFS as well. Or FAT or NTFS or EXT2 (NTFS is read-only, though).

You get the highest speed if you don't select any Amiga file system but use a host directory as hard drive. Then the native (x86 or x64) FAT or NTFS code is used.

[seuden]

What a ridiculous suggestion/idea/query/thread. This thread needs deleting.

[NewDeli]

I'll offer you "le fond de ma pensée" which approx. means my deepest feeling about this, although some folks simply aren't interested in keeping the banter (or should I say harrash ) out :

I have noticed WinUAE "exhausts" Windows (Windows Vista most notably, as it's the main OS is use here) faster than other proggies. It's not a bug per se as even the most sophisticated OS'es need to be rebooted once a while, but it seems I have to "reload" Windows desktop (usually, logging off then on does the trick) occasionally or else all I get when I attempt to load AmigaOS is a black screen.

So I said to myself : Could it be that WinUAE depends too much on free RAM ? I wouldn't mind too much a somehow slower AmigaOS boot up time, if that meant I could "reload" numerous times without the side effect I just mentioned.

I am not an avid gamer, so if demanding Windows games induce the same phenomenon, then please forget what I've just said.

[Maccara]

Originally Posted by NewDeli

I have noticed WinUAE "exhausts" Windows (Windows Vista most notably, as it's the main OS is use here) faster than other proggies. It's not a bug per se as even the most sophisticated OS'es need to be rebooted once a while, but it seems I have to "reload" Windows desktop (usually, logging off then on does the trick) occasionally or else all I get when I attempt to load AmigaOS is a black screen.

I'd bet you've just run into gfx driver resource leak. Nothing to do with winuae memory handling. Definitely nothing to do with pagefiles.