Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - OS4User

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23
16
Hardware / Re: Hardware Compatibility Wishlist for 2022
« on: January 22, 2022, 03:40:43 pm »
I have another one: Support up to 4 GB RAM for the system with addition of Physical Address Extension.

Maybe the os/4 team can comment.
My technicall estimate to get this in current os/2 kernel.
Well not going happen...

Roderick

OS/4 uses PSE-36 for quite a long. But for ram drive only.
To use PSE-36 or PAE for general propose memory   requires   totally  rewrite kernel component "Pager" and all PDD at least.  So "Well not going happen... (ะก)".

17
Applications / Re: ArcaOS 5.0.7
« on: January 20, 2022, 06:59:20 am »
while on AN5.06 the new pmmerge.dll works fine it causes a trap on AN5.07 here.

pls show trap screen

18
Storage / Re: JFS cache sizing, and system "speed-up"
« on: November 23, 2021, 07:34:20 am »
System seems to have ended up unstable after that change, both SM and TB crashing frequently. Leaves me wondering if the kernel commits more memory at times. Different partition with VAL set to 3072 gives me 153M free system memory, 123M largest block.

I have  107M free system memory, 92M largest block.  FF is quite stable.

19
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 21, 2021, 08:46:53 pm »
VAL is intended to provide the additional memory footprint for applications that need the bigger "box" boundaries.

VAL is intended to divide upper 3.5GB of virt address space between  high priv/shrd arena and system arena. Kernel takes VAL  value into consideration much earlier then FSD/PDD are loading (and JFS cache  allocating) - so no way to calculate  how big system arena has to be to accommodates all the parts of this puzzle. At the same time  nothing is preventing user to check how many free mem is in system arena after boot and adjust VAL accordingly to pass unused addresses from sys arena to high priv/shrd arena.


20
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 21, 2021, 08:40:12 am »
Unless I allow the system to allocate LESS physical memory in support of the VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT setting, I cannot use that memory to implement the sort of "system" controls I am telling my machine to utilize.

Kernel always use ALL available PHYS mem (reported by BIOS). There is no way to influence this.

(OS/2 kernel has a bug and cannot operate with some specific regions of RAM and loader from Dixie is able to hide them from the kernel - but this is totally different story.)

Setting VAL you control VIRT mem layout only (not PHYS). You can use http://os2.snc.ru/product-SystemLoad.html to see the layout.

Whiel I think I understand how this work,

To have full understanding pls refer to Intel  doc and see how does work  phys to virt mapping.

I do find this to be counterintuitive, expecting that should a VAL be set sky-high I should in fact be able to request a 1G JFS cache

Of course, it is  counterintuitive. And I have no idea why you came to conclusion  to make VAL sky-high. As I said, JFS cache situated in System Arena. So to have more space for JFS cache you have to increase System Arena, is't it ? As I also said, System Arena is between VAL and 4GB - so you have to set VAL as low as possible (say 512) to have max size of System Arena (3.5GB).


21
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 20, 2021, 10:15:40 pm »
I think you and Dave are in fact saying the same thing though, except that both of you are coming at this from a nearly 180deg opposite starting points.

:) No. It is not so.

Going to something much larger, such as 256, 512 or my current 736M size required me to lower the VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT setting in order to (I believe) free up the 'system' area.

By lowering VAL you INCREASE system arena (where JFS cache is situated) and same time you DECREASE high mem.

So yes, if my machine has a total accessible memory space of 3.2G, and my VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072, I have very little room there to work with.

One more time  -  "total accessible memory space of 3.2G"  does not have any relation to VAL.
Even you have 512Mb of RAM installed, with VAL=3072 you will have 1GB system arena.

For ex.  most of kernel's objects are ALWAYS (in spite of installed RAM) situated at the very top of VIRT mem:  0xFFE7700 - FFFC0000h. And just a few of them  mapped into specific phys mem (lower 1Mb).

Therefore, there absolutely appears to be some limit (by design I believe) that won't allow the virual memory use to grow beyond what physical-(minus)-system total ends up being.

It only appears that  ALL virt mem cannot be bigger than 4GB.

22
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 20, 2021, 08:55:36 pm »
4GB's of address space minus PCI memory address space (including video memory) equals 3.2Mb's of address space in my case, and then minus kernel address space, things like the JFS cache.

Dave, you've mixed all together :) .  Yes, you can see 3.2GB of total RAM accessible to system  (even if 4 GB of SIMM modules are installed) because of PCI dev, BIOSes, APICs, HPET and video adapter (may be something else). But this is physical mem. Kernel operates by 32 bit phys address only - that is why 4GB  can be addressed and no more.

All virtual mem in summary is always 4GB in spite of how much physical mem you have.

Virtual memory is divided into tree parts:
 - low (under 512M) (private and shared)
 - hight (between 512M and VAL)(private and shared)
 - system (between VAL and 4GB)

PDDs, FSDs, PSD, kernel, loader, JFS cache and many other things  are in system memory.

Use of system memory almost doesn't grow after boot.

System compensates lack of RAM by swap file.



23
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 20, 2021, 07:07:57 pm »
This system for example has 3,241 MB's memory accessible to the system, which doesn't leave much room above 3072 VAL value for the JFS cache etc

VAL and virtual memory do not have any relation to physical memory. System will have exactly the same layout and amount (about 4GB) of virtual mem whether it has 4GB or 512MB of RAM installed.

24
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 20, 2021, 12:11:10 pm »
I just have one question has there ever been any hard evidence for fiddeling with the virtual address limit really increases or decreases applications stability ?

I always use VAL = 3072. I have never seen corelation between VAL value and system/applications stability. System may not boot if:
  - VAL = 3072 (means System Aria is just 1GB);
  - and too many drivers;
  - and JFS cache is not correctly set;
  - and treads/processes are not correctly set;
such cases I have meet a few times.

25
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 19, 2021, 07:11:53 pm »
Hi Dave,

I have been testing your newly built NSPR4 DLL's for about 6 hours. My FF became unstable - during this time it suddenly closed 5 times. Prior to upgrading to the new NSPR4, my FF would suddenly close once in a few weeks.

Are you using the updated NSS 3.47.0-2 along side it? They're matched and simply replacing NSPR-4.12 would be a bad idea. Sorry for not being clear about that.

I am using:  NSPR 4.12.0-4 and NSS 3.23.0-4.

Once I tried   4.23.0-1 and 3.47.0-2 respectively (when they were in EXP)  - my FF become to unstable.

I tested your NSPR with NSS 3.23.0-4.

26
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 19, 2021, 04:50:33 pm »
Here, after the last big update to netlabs.rel, my system became very unstable.

Try to rollback nss* and nspr. I have installed almost all packs from  netlabs.rel  -  everything quite stable.

Anyone who wants to play along, here's my newly built NSPR4 DLL's, they're Pentium 4 with -mtune=generic raw builds, so still have the debugging stuff included, could be lxlited, my build didn't create dbg files for these.

Hi Dave,

I have been testing your newly built NSPR4 DLL's for about 6 hours. My FF became unstable - during this time it suddenly closed 5 times. Prior to upgrading to the new NSPR4, my FF would suddenly close once in a few weeks.


27
Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 16, 2021, 08:19:45 am »
Here, after the last big update to netlabs.rel, my system became very unstable.

Try to rollback nss* and nspr. I have installed almost all packs from  netlabs.rel  -  everything quite stable.

28
Hardware / Re: OS/2 Video Performance
« on: October 21, 2021, 08:20:31 am »
Intel HDA Graphics
PM Graphics Marks: 268
DIVE Marks: 18062

For OS/2  "DIVE -> Video bus bandwidth" is more significant. Since built-in graphics have bigger VBB  all other marks are also bigger for built-in. In most cases built-in graphics is even faster then HW solutions supported by SNAP (ATI x850).

29
Applications / Re: patched PmMerge
« on: July 02, 2021, 09:01:45 pm »
I tried your patched. It failed the teststart2 test with an out of resources message. The pmerge with the stack overflow patch mention by David ran this test to completion. The pmmerge 6111 also clips the dialogs in eFTEPM (see attached).

could you try the same on not patched IBM pmmerge ?

tried. have the same problem with the old pmmerge. so may problem is not related to the new version. sorry for my wrong assumption.

It is ok :) .  Tnx for testing.

30
Applications / Re: patched PmMerge
« on: July 02, 2021, 08:00:09 am »
I tried your patched. It failed the teststart2 test with an out of resources message. The pmerge with the stack overflow patch mention by David ran this test to completion. The pmmerge 6111 also clips the dialogs in eFTEPM (see attached).

could you try the same on not patched IBM pmmerge ?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23