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 - Dariusz Piatkowski

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 88
1036
Andi,

There's
Code: [Select]
SET SNAP_MAXVRAM_32MB=Y
in my config.sys. Pretty sure the SNAP documentation explains this.

...but as OS4User pointed out, and I agree, I think these two ways of controlling the video memory allocation are different.

I did both, the result is that I see the following in graphics.log:

Video memory limited to user supplied value of 32MB

Attempting to enable write combining, base = 0xD0000000, length = 0x02000000 ... Success!
Attempting to disable caching for MMIO, base = 0xFE9F0000, length = 0x00004000 ...
Failed: UNKNOWN ERROR!
Loading chipset filters...done.
Loading splash screen...done.


The Screen dialog now only shows 32Meg as the total memory for the video card, and CLI 'gaoption show' gives this:

Global options for all devices:

  Force VBE Fallback ...... Off
  Force VGA Fallback ...... Off
  Allow non-certified ..... On
  Disable write combining . Off
  Use BIOS for LCD panel... Auto
  Video Memory Limit....... 32 Mb
  Shared AGP memory size... 4096 Kb
  Use system memory driver. Off
  Disable DDC detection.... Off
  Enable AGP FastWrite..... Off
  Maximum AGP data rate.... 8X
  Virtual Display.......... Off


Bottom line here is that:
1) I can successfully boot with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT = 3072

2) ...but that made me greedy, because I miss my bigger HPFS386 cache, so I went back to playing with the sizing and was able to increase the cache size from 64M to 128M however I needed to drop to VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2048 to make that happen

At this point in time I think I got the hang of the SNAP driver's memory allocation scheme and how it impacts the remainder of the system memory.


1037
Hey Doug!

Quote
I'm curious, what are you guys setting your VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT to?

I have been using 2560, but 3072 seems to work just as well. With less than 2560 (2048), I start to run out of shared memory space, after a couple of days. I do use the CLAMD.EXE, supplied by RPM/YUM, from netlabs-rel, and it uses close to 1 GB of upper shared memory space. Not using ClamD.EXE doesn't change anything, except I can use a smaller number for VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT...

Yeah, similar to how I got to my 3072 setting. I used to run FF full-time, multiple windows, multiple tabs...and I never shut down my machine, up 24x7, or at least as long as OS/2 itself is willing to stay up and running. I found that the higher I cranked this value up the more stable the system would be.

Quote
LIBC Error: Couldn't register process in shared memory!
...This error seems to have nothing to do with VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT. It happens when I load DLLs high (I can't even run my system, if I don't do that with AOO, and FF). Take either one of those programs, open, and close, any combination, twice, and I start to get that message with anything that uses LIBC. Other things keep on working properly, but it takes a re-boot to get the problem solved (temporarily).

FWIW, I use the Quick Start feature with AOO, and that helps because it keeps the DLLs loaded, rather than unloading them, witch causes the problem....

My only experience with the impact this value has had is due to AN SNAP driver change. I can absolutely confirm that the only way for me to get a working environment (other than WPS coming up fine and some (most?) of the core OS/2 stuff working) is to lower this value. Subsequently, for now, the only way I can have a working system is by setting this to 2048.

Worth noting is the following:

1) I run HPFS386 with a 64M cache
2) my ATI X850 XT card comes equipped with 256M ram, which apparently is causing the drivers to consume that much of the actual system memory - making the change to limit this to 24M, re-boot coming up next
3) AOO Quick Start feature is executed upon start-up
4) I have about 19 apps in my XWP start-up folder, most of these are utility type things, such as: CPUMonitor, lSwitcher, dSync, Win 95 Key, SetTime, Xit, CAD-Popup, UPS Monitor, DskMon, Web/2, PSI, Privoxy, etc

Not sure if that makes for a 'heavy load' on a system, but I would hope not since most of these are small memory foot-print type apps.

1038
Hey OS4User,

To Dariusz:


LIBC Error: Couldn't register process in shared memory!

I'm curious, what are you guys setting your VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT to?

Pre Arca SNAP has a bad habit - it is mapping ALL memory available on a video card into address space (if  I am not wrong, even twice).

It looks absolutely senseless - just a waste of address space.
Fortunately, there is a way to "fix" this. "gaoption vidmem 8" reduces size of mem to be mapped by SNAP to 8M (it is sufficient for 1280x1024x16M)

I always use  VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT = 3072 (/CACHE:262144  for JFS.IFS)

Alright, happy to give this a go, let me explain my calculation, hopefully no mistakes:

So (for your 1280x1024 resolution):
1) 1280x1024 = 1310720 pixels
2) 16M colours means 32bit colour depth, that's 4 bytes/pixel
3) 1310720 pixels * 4 bytes/pixel = 5242880 bytes, which is approx 5 MB

If you assume 24bit colour depth, thus 3 bytes/pixel, the above result changes to 4 MB, am I understanding this correctly?

If yes, than the appropriate sizing for my 1920x1200 @ 32bit colour depth is:
1) 1920x1200 = 2304000 pixles
2) 32 bit colour depth, that's 4 bytes/pixel
3) 2304000 pixels * 4 bytes/pixel = 9216000 bytes, which is approx 9 MB

Since I ultimately want to have this setup as a dual-head display I will double up the 9MB allocation and give it a little extra 'room'...therefore, the required SNAP command is: 'gaoption vidmem 24', which is what I executed...so let's see what a re-boot brings??? lol

1039
Hey Neil!

Looking at the DIVE results, is there something wrong with the measurement? I measured the M93p tiny

Code: [Select]
Direct Interface to video extensions - DIVE
   Video bus bandwidth   :     7282.561    Megabytes/second
   DIVE fun              :    27175.091    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   M->S, DD,   1.00:1    :    25132.707    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     9516.640    DIVE-marks

Is it really that much faster than an accelerated ATI card?

OMG!!!...seriously, those M->S values are "to die for"...that's smoking fast, what are the non-DIVE test results?

My big complaint is that with such poor M->S values, on my 1920x1200 display I am literally seeing the Firefox (as well as other apps) frame window draw first and I can actually catch the inside of the window being drawn...sure it goes by fast, but the fact that I can actually preceive it is very distracting...so can not be faster then 1/30 secs. given typical human visual perception.

The old SciTech drives produced instant udpates, in my cases, the matching M->S scores were nearly 5-6x faster.

Neil, what video hardware are you running? Maybe it is time for me to drop my trusty ATI X850 XT PE card and move on? LOL

1040
Probably, here I get the same DIVE speed with Panorama and accelerated Snap, so I guess it is just memory speed.

...I did a whole wack more testing, consistently though I found that even though the graphics.log entries claim that write combining is turned on the performance tells a different story.

So just to be sure I disabled write combine with "gaoptions", re-booted, re-ran the test. The Sysbench results are the same, so on my system at least there is no difference...and that implies that whatever the drivers think they are doing to successfully enable write combining, it is not actually getting done.

Here is something else to consider, I am having a hell of a time with the CONFIG.SYS VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT entry. Previously with the SciTech drivers I used to run VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072, with this same setting I can not boot to a workable system, meaning, I continue to get the following error message whenever I attempt to start most of my programs:

LIBC Error: Couldn't register process in shared memory!

In particular, my networking is down entirely, like it doesn't even start up, "ping" goes nowhere, etc, etc.

Lowering the value to VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=2048 finally resulting in a working system. Now the graphics.log actually shows the full 256MB of video card ram, previously it only recognizes 128MB and complains that all of memory may not be available.

I'm curious, what are you guys setting your VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT to?


1041
Hey Pete!

...Where is sysbench 0.9.5d available? - I only see 0.9.5c on http://www.os2warp.org/Sysbench/...
Hmm...good question...I remember working with Trevor a few years back on some fixes, may have had something to do with either my HPFS386 fs, or maybe it was CPU speed related, so I'm thinking it may have been a test release version? Although I thought he did eventually make that available...I could have sworn I've see it out in the "wild"...LOL!

I looked for the ZIP on my system (in case I saved it) but I did not find it. I can ceratinly ZIP-up the contents of the directory and send it your way...I do not think there was a specific install program...

1042
Yeah, I am not sure what the MMIO is about, but here at least there is a very real performance impact.

Sure, when comparing across different configurations what I am seeing in my 'slow' setup may not seen all that bad...however, the old IBM SNAP driver was pretty much able to keep up with my Win7Pro box which happens to have the very same Phenom II X6 cpu and ATI X850 XT PE video card in there (but in a different motherboard), so a fair comparison, and I for one was always impressed that my old OS/2 box was holding up to the Win stuff.

In my troubleshooting I did investigate the potential aspect of having 6 CPU cores enabled vs the old 5 core setup, this however had no impact on driver loading, same LOG entry, same performance results (+/- the CPU extra power contribution).

Anyways, I did log a ticket for the AN/SNAP folks, see => https://mantis.arcanoae.com/view.php?id=1505, the Mantis system appears to be down at the moment (I can not reach it) but I do not suspect they will be able to look at this anytime soon, I think Rich is busy on some type of dynamic resolution changing process (I do not know this first-hand, just picking up the stuff from the "ether"...LOL).

Alright, thanks for the feedback you guys. The next step on my search for the "Holy Grail" was to re-try the dual-head configuration. The AN SNAP drivers though still are running into the same problem as the IBM ones, which is declaring the monitor EDID to be broken, subsequently, as best as I can tell only the 'Head 0' drivers get loaded. This will have to wait.

ivan,
My Samsung 245T panel has HDMI connection on it, but I have not tried it. Will give it a go tomorrow and report-out. As it happens, playing with the SNAP drivers hasn't been the most fun event, I did manage to mess up my INI files badly enough that I needed to recover from a backup to get back to a working PMMAIL, FIREFOX and PSI install. Not sure what it was, however, PSI would produce a trap entry showing a SYS3175 in REGISTRY.DLL.

Ah, one more thing, given that we are speaking of other video driver/hardware related stuff: who has a working dual-head configuration? What are you using, can you post your GRAPHICS.LOG contents?

I am asking this last question because the SNAP readme clearly states that even the ATI hardware will only support DVI for a single display and anything else needs to use RGB. Indeed, my ATI card has two DVI connectors, I ran DVI to my primary but used a DVI=>RGB adapter to my secondary. I did end up seeing the following in my GRAPHICS.LOG file, however the 'head 1' panel never produced anything on-screen.

Configuration for head 0:

Monitor configuration:
  Manufacturer... Samsung
  Model.......... SyncMaster
  Max Resolution. 1920x1440
  Max HScan...... 81 KHz
  Max VScan...... 75 Hz
  Features....... DPMS Wide

LCD panel detected:
  Width:  1920
  Height: 1200

Graphics mode information (DFP):


...and the matching entry for head 1:

Configuration for head 1:

Monitor configuration:
  Manufacturer... Samsung
  Model.......... SyncMaster
  Max Resolution. 1920x1440
  Max HScan...... 81 KHz
  Max VScan...... 75 Hz
  Features....... DPMS Wide

Graphics mode information (CRT):

1043
Programming / Re: SQL/DBExpert
« on: October 25, 2017, 12:15:32 am »
Are you simply missing the 'VALUES' expression?

So my familiarity with SQL comes from Oracle enterprise dbms. In the example you provided below, the values come from another table, so the parser figures this out on it's own.

Here is a link to the Oracle docs on this specific subject => https://docs.oracle.com/cd/B12037_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_elems025.htm

Beyond the above syntax specific comment, I am thinking the following: your statement reads like the SUM is outside the 'INSERT' expression itself:

dbeRunSQL (INSERT INTO TABLENAME(TABLEFIELD)) SUM

I would re-write it as:

dbeRunSQL(INSERT INTO TABLENAME(TABLEFIELD) SUM)

1044
...and here is the matching section from the IBM_SNAP driver initialization:

GA_enumerateDevices: Found 1 PCI/AGP display devices

Global options for all devices:
  Force VBE Fallback ...... Off
  Force VGA Fallback ...... Off
  Allow non-certified ..... On
  Disable write combining . Off
  Use BIOS for LCD panel... Auto
  Shared AGP memory size... 4096 KB
  Use system memory driver. Off
  Disable DDC detection.... Off
  Virtual Display.......... Off

Loading driver for device 0 (radeon.drv.Sep.25.2006.13.01.08)
---------------------------------------------------------

Partially mapped graphics memory: 0x08000000 instead of 0x10000000 bytes
You may not see all available memory due to memory mapping limitations

Attempting to enable write combining, base = 0xD0000000, length = 0x08000000 ... Success!
Attempting to disable caching for MMIO, base = 0xFE9F0000, length = 0x00004000 ... Success!
Loading chipset filters...done.
Loading splash screen...done.

Graphics device configuration:
  Manufacturer......... ATI
  Chipset.............. Radeon X850 Series
  Bus Type............. PCI Express
  Memory............... 131072 KB
  DAC.................. ATI Internal 24 bit DAC
  Clock................ ATI Internal Clock
  Memory Clock......... 400 MHz
  Default Memory Clock. 400 MHz
  Maximum Memory Clock. 400 MHz
  Driver Revision...... 3.2, Build 29
  Driver Build......... Sep 25 2006
  Certified Version.... 1.60
  Certified Date....... Sep 25 2006

Graphics device options:
  Invert .................. Off
  Rotation ................ Off
  Flipped ................. Off
  Prefer 16 bit per pixel.. On
  Prefer 32 bit per pixel.. On
  PCI bus mastering........ On
  Hardware acceleration.... Full


1045
Hi Roderick,

What is the error in graphics.log ?

Here is a quick snippet, but I've attached the full log to the post as well:

GA_enumerateDevices: Found 1 PCI/AGP display devices

Global options for all devices:
  Force VBE Fallback ...... Off
  Force VGA Fallback ...... Off
  Allow non-certified ..... On
  Disable write combining . Off
  Use BIOS for LCD panel... Auto
  Shared AGP memory size... 4096 KB
  Use system memory driver. Off
  Disable DDC detection.... Off
  Virtual Display.......... Off

Loading driver for device 0 (radeon.drv)
---------------------------------------------------------

Partially mapped graphics memory: 0x08000000 instead of 0x10000000 bytes
You may not see all available memory due to memory mapping limitations

Attempting to enable write combining, base = 0xD0000000, length = 0x08000000 ... Success!
Attempting to disable caching for MMIO, base = 0xFE9F0000, length = 0x00004000 ...
Failed: UNKNOWN ERROR!
Loading chipset filters...done.
Loading splash screen...done.

Graphics device configuration:
  Manufacturer......... ATI
  Chipset.............. Radeon X850 Series
  Bus Type............. PCI Express
  Memory............... 131072 KB
  DAC.................. ATI Internal 24 bit DAC
  Clock................ ATI Internal Clock
  Memory Clock......... 400 MHz
  Default Memory Clock. 400 MHz
  Maximum Memory Clock. 400 MHz
  Driver Revision...... 3.2, Build 29
  Driver Build......... May  2 2017
  Certified Version.... Not Certified

Graphics device options:
  Invert .................. Off
  Rotation ................ Off
  Flipped ................. Off
  Prefer 16 bit per pixel.. On
  Prefer 32 bit per pixel.. On
  PCI bus mastering........ On
  Hardware acceleration.... Full



1046
Folks,

I just installed the AN release of the SNAP video drivers here. What I found was both exhilarating and somewhat dissapointing (well, just a tad bit, but read on), so I thought I'd share my experience.

My findings relate to the differences between the IBM/SciTech SNAP drivers (the latest publicly available build being 3.1.8 I believe) and the current SNAP drivers that are shipping with the ANOS, that being 'Build No 506'.

Alright, so ATI X850 XT PE video card here, driving my Samsung 245T panel at 1900x1200 resolution.

OK, good, heck GREAT stuff first. I used to suffer from that annoying OS/2 version of the "Blue Screen of Death"...LOL, meaning, as the GUI comes up and WPS is starting to initialize my system would simply hang. Not a hard hang, CTL-ALT-DEL would allow a re-boot w/o a chkdsk. This would only happen if I ran all 6 cores of my AMD Phenom CPU enabled. Since that made my box un-usable I disabled the 6th core in BIOS and simply used a crippled system with 5 cores only. But hey, at least it worked!!!

Well, I am thrilled to report this issue is now GONE...no longer a problem, I can routinely re-boot using the full 6 cores, no WPS start-up hang, all good! This is a great result. My understanding is that the SNAP drivers had some SMP related issues addressed, so if this was one of them it certainly did the trick.

Alright...so what's the "problematic" piece to report on?

Hmm, the video performance is down. Not sure why that is the case, I will log a ticket for the SNAP team and point to a few things I'm seeing, but in short, take a look at the before & after Sysbench 0.9.5d results:

1) old IBM/SciTech SNAP drivers

Graphics
   BitBlt S->S copy      :     9175.950    Million pixels/second
   BitBlt M->S copy      :      293.762    Million pixels/second
   Filled Rectangle      :    22804.327    Million pixels/second
   Pattern Fill          :     3514.758    Million pixels/second
   Vertical Lines        :      173.654    Million pixels/second
   Horizontal Lines      :     1342.758    Million pixels/second
   Diagonal Lines        :       69.059    Million pixels/second
   Text Render           :      853.040    Million pixels/second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     1145.656    PM-Graphics-marks

 Direct Interface to video extensions - DIVE
   Video bus bandwidth   :     1123.420    Megabytes/second
   DIVE fun              :     3834.609    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   M->S, DD,   1.00:1    :     3831.759    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     1432.589    DIVE-marks



2) new AN SNAP drivers

Graphics
   BitBlt S->S copy      :    12437.376    Million pixels/second
   BitBlt M->S copy      :       58.650    Million pixels/second
   Filled Rectangle      :    46704.301    Million pixels/second
   Pattern Fill          :     3507.515    Million pixels/second
   Vertical Lines        :      173.718    Million pixels/second
   Horizontal Lines      :     1267.768    Million pixels/second
   Diagonal Lines        :       57.530    Million pixels/second
   Text Render           :      859.766    Million pixels/second
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :     1033.508    PM-Graphics-marks

 Direct Interface to video extensions - DIVE
   Video bus bandwidth   :      223.803    Megabytes/second
   DIVE fun              :      763.788    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   M->S, DD,   1.00:1    :      763.845    fps normalised to 640x480x256
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total                 :      285.501    DIVE-marks



In particular, the 'BitBlt M->S copy' and DIVE performance is severely down. In terms of application impact that is making my FF so slow that I can literaly see the page re-draw...OK, we are not talking here line at a time, but you can see the refresh whereas before it was lighting fast.

The drivers claim that write combining is enabled but in the GRAPHICS.LOG I see there is a failure report of some type, so there is something here that probably needs further review.

That's all for now. I would love to hear from anyone else who's using the AN SNAP drivers on their system and what you are seeing?

1047
Utilities / Re: Unzip 5.52 vs 6.00 date differences...why?
« on: October 20, 2017, 10:00:44 pm »
Olafur,

LSZipWiz is a regularly updated alternative: http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/download/pub/incoming/lszipwiz-0.99.zip

Good point...I did install this app, checked it out, was going to make some suggestions to the author on how to enhance it...for starters, I wish that the application window and it's content frames were scalable...so that if you expand the main window the child windows expand as well. For eample, the contents of a large ZIP file would then be easily viewable.

1048
Utilities / Re: Unzip 5.52 vs 6.00 date differences...why?
« on: October 20, 2017, 07:16:17 pm »
Hi Andreas!

Quote
If you're looking for a recent and supported GUI tool, then use Zippy.
Rosyjska wysoka technologia - prawdopodobnie zły żart ;)

Nie wiadomo co jeszcze tam jest schowane w tym Zippy "gift" eh? LOL

1049
Utilities / Re: Unzip 5.52 vs 6.00 date differences...why?
« on: October 20, 2017, 07:12:20 pm »
Hi Andreas,

Dariusz, you posted screenshots from an outdated an now unsupported unpack tool.

Wouldn't it be possible to post the output of the command line tools, be it unzip 6.00 or unzip 5.52 instead?

If you're looking for a recent and supported GUI tool, then use Zippy.

The GUI tool I am using, while rather ancient in terms of build release date, is still extremly functional and at least for me when compared to the other options is some ways ahead of them.

For now, I just went back to 5.52 unzip release.

1050
Utilities / Unzip 5.52 vs 6.00 date differences...why?
« on: October 18, 2017, 11:43:33 pm »
So I think it's pretty simple issue I'm looking at. My utility to deal with ZIP files is: RPF ZipControl, v2.6.4, a pretty nifty GUI, but relies on the zip/unzip EXEs themselves for the crunching work.

For a long time I was using unzip 5.52, but as I'm attempting to clean-up my machine in the continuing drive towards the RPM/YUM assimilation (LOL, yeah, I imagine meeting Borg would be just as fun) I discovered that installing the currently available unzip package gets me unzip 6.00, with a side-effect though!!!

So the result of unizp 5.52 gives me good, actual DATES in the ZIP archive, the 6.00 on the other hand gives me all 2020 dates, ugh???

I suspect something has chagned, is it in the unzip itself? Is there a CLI option I need to account for? Any ideas?

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 88