Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:11859 comp.sys.novell:1277 Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.sys.novell Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!npd.novell.com!news From: jlamb@npd.Novell.COM (Jason "Nematode" Lamb) Subject: Re: Windows on diskless workstations Message-ID: <1991Apr24.005149.26404@npd.Novell.COM> Reply-To: jlamb@seneca.npd.Novell.COM (Jason "Nematode" Lamb) Organization: Novell Inc., Provo References: <1991Apr18.015949.26790@npd.Novell.COM> <1991Apr18.162708.20756@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1991Apr19.012141.19679@npd.Novell.COM> <1991Apr20.011102.26644@serval.net.wsu.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 00:51:49 GMT In article <1991Apr20.011102.26644@serval.net.wsu.edu> ckinsman@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Chris Kinsman) writes: >In article <1991Apr19.012141.19679@npd.Novell.COM> jlamb@seneca.npd.Novell.COM (Jason "Nematode" Lamb) writes: >>I do stand corrected. Swapping can be turned off for 386 Enhanced mode... >> >>If there's anyone out there who's seriously considering doing it,... don't. >> >>(Or at the minimum, TEST it first. Then you will know the true meaning of >>suffering for your art....) >> >>Ditto for anyone considering using 512K for a swapping ramdisk (in 386 Enh >>mode). >> >>(I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes the manual will state actual truths >>and garnish them with an inordinate amount of optimism...) >> >I don't know where you come up with your don't. It is not an absolutism. >It depends on the machine. On a machine with 16 meg of RAM you are better >turning off the swapfile. Why? Because you couldn't utilize much more than >16 meg in windows without running out of system resources and by turning it >off you actually increase the available resources and increase performance. >On a 4 meg machine however you would be foolish to turn it off because you >can easily use more than the 4 meg of REAL ram you have. > >512K is not a bad size (actually a little small if you are printing 300 dpi >graphics to a laser) for a ramdisk to set your temp variable to. I would >not swap in 386EM mode to it however. I think you would be better off with >the real memory in 386EM. In real and standard mode a 512K-1024K ramdisk >with the TEMP variable set to it is better. > >Chris > Again, yeah yeah.. I came up with my don't and my generalization, based upon the beginning of this thread, which regarded diskless workstations running Windows on NetWare networks. It is that configuration that I recommended not turning off paging for. And that is based on the fact that I have never seen a diskless WS with enough memory to warrant turning off paging for. There are certain machines that will not be affected by turning paging off on, such as 16mb 386es, but I'm not convinced that you would be increasing performance or resources by turning it off, based upon my experimentation. I admit that I tested most of my Win/NW configs on real world boxes, but I did do some testing on a Compaq 486/33 with 20mb of RAM. I'm not even sure the swap file was even used on that machine. I agree with your thesis that you can actually turn off paging in 386 Enh mode on some machines (lots of memory) without it hurting performance, but I can't see it helping performance on those boxes any. In most users' WSes they should 1) keep paging on, and 2) try to keep it off NW 286 server drives if possible. Lastly, I again encourage users to try their configurations with 512K RAM disks for swapfiles in any mode, before they assume it'll be ok. I also offer that they should test larger RAM disks for swap space after they get a significant amount of Windows Apps workload bandwidth worked up and see if they see performance improvements. BTW, my workstation is a 20mhz 386 with 8mb of RAM and I'M NOT turning off paging. (After trying it out.. of course..) Jason -- ---- ---- Jason Lamb jlamb@Sed.Novell.COM ---- ----