Messages

1

Storage / Re: DISKIO - updated version in need of TEST

« on: December 17, 2024, 08:28:42 pm »

Hmm, seems like low CPU score, what are you running? If that's a fast CPU I think we may be getting an overflow in the benchmark code, on my TO-DO list.

This is a old laptop hp8760w with xeon

So CPU is an 8-core chip, yes?

Yes

Can you get me a debug-run on just that drive please?

This disk1 is a 1tb sdd, but show 114470mb

Code: [Select]

DISKIO - Fixed Disk Benchmark, Version 1.25
(C) 1994-1998 Kai Uwe Rommel
(C)      2004 madded2
    2020-2024 Dariusz Piatkowski

Number of fixed disks: 10
Number of CD-ROM drives: 2

Dhrystone 2.1 C benchmark routines (C) 1988 Reinhold P. Weicker
Dhrystone benchmark for this CPU: 3308172 runs/sec

 DEBUG => using DosPhysicalDisk for $1:

 DEBUG => found the disk...

 DEBUG => sectors is : 63
 DEBUG => tracks  is : 14593
 DEBUG => sides   is : 255
 DEBUG => sector  is : 512

Hard disk 1: 255 sides, 14593 cylinders, 63 sectors per track = 114470 MB

Drive cache/bus transfer rate: 101216 k/sec

 DEBUG => nSector  is: 512
 DEBUG => nSectors is: 63
 DEBUG => nData    is: 521773056
 DEBUG => nTime    is: 5155

Data transfer rate on cylinder 0      : 115738 k/sec

 DEBUG => nData is: 594897408
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5140

Data transfer rate on cylinder 14591  : 241781 k/sec

 DEBUG => nData is: 1239372288
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5126

CPU usage by full speed disk transfers: 0%
Average latency time: 0.1 ms

 DEBUG => nTime is: 1
 DEBUG => nCnt is: 33782

Average data access time: 0.1 ms

 DEBUG => nTime is: 1
 DEBUG =>  nCnt is: 37410


Multithreaded disk I/O
1  thread: 116244 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 596800512
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5134

2 threads: 109120 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 559351296
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5126

3 threads: 108347 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 556254720
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5134

4 threads: 109145 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 560899584
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5139

5 threads: 108745 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 560254464
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5152

6 threads: 111054 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 571931136
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5150

7 threads: 111081 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 571737600
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5147

8 threads: 110371 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

 DEBUG => nTotal is: 566318592
 DEBUG => nTime is: 5131


Yup, USB devices...I am looking at ways of checking whether the storage devices that are identified by DISKIO at the start are actually usable, before the attempt to benchmark them actually starts.

The disk3 is no disk, no usb conected.

Saludos

2

Storage / Re: DISKIO - updated version in need of TEST

« on: December 16, 2024, 06:58:56 pm »

Hello Dariusz
My test:

Code: [Select]


[D:\]cd D:\diskio125

[D:\diskio125]diskio
DISKIO - Fixed Disk Benchmark, Version 1.25
(C) 1994-1998 Kai Uwe Rommel
(C)      2004 madded2
    2020-2024 Dariusz Piatkowski

Number of fixed disks: 10
Number of CD-ROM drives: 2

Dhrystone 2.1 C benchmark routines (C) 1988 Reinhold P. Weicker
Dhrystone benchmark for this CPU: 3307018 runs/sec

Hard disk 1: 255 sides, 14593 cylinders, 63 sectors per track = 114470 MB

Drive cache/bus transfer rate:          101023 k/sec
Data transfer rate on cylinder 0      : 116343 k/sec
Data transfer rate on cylinder 14591  : 241957 k/sec
CPU usage by full speed disk transfers: 0%
Average latency time:                   0.1 ms
Average data access time:               0.1 ms

Multithreaded disk I/O
        1  thread:                      116510 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        2 threads:                      109296 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        3 threads:                      108393 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        4 threads:                      108952 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        5 threads:                      109710 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        6 threads:                      110312 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        7 threads:                      110657 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        8 threads:                      110428 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

Hard disk 2: 255 sides, 61769 cylinders, 127 sectors per track = 976752 MB

Drive cache/bus transfer rate:          165832 k/sec
Data transfer rate on cylinder 0      : 404224 k/sec
Data transfer rate on cylinder 61767  : 407399 k/sec
CPU usage by full speed disk transfers: 0%
Average latency time:                   0.0 ms
Average data access time:               0.2 ms

Multithreaded disk I/O
        1  thread:                      170925 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        2 threads:                      161234 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        3 threads:                      158390 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        4 threads:                      158535 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        5 threads:                      158018 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        6 threads:                      158656 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        7 threads:                      156967 k/sec, 0% CPU usage
        8 threads:                      157459 k/sec, 0% CPU usage

Hard disk 3: 12 sides, 512 cylinders, 9 sectors per track = 27 MB

Drive cache/bus transfer rate: Disk read error.
Data transfer rate on cylinder 0      : Disk read error.
Data transfer rate on cylinder 510    : Disk read error.
CPU usage by full speed disk transfers: Disk read error.
Average latency time: Disk read error.
Average data access time:               Disk read error.

Multithreaded disk I/O
        1  thread: Disk read error.

SYS1808:
The process has stopped.  The software diagnostic
code (exception code) is  009B.

[D:\diskio125]

popuplog.os2

12-16-2024  18:45:31  SYS3184  PID 0054  TID 0001  Slot 0086
D:\DISKIO125\DISKIO.EXE
c000009b
0002258d
EAX=00000000  EBX=00000000  ECX=00000000  EDX=00000000
ESI=00000000  EDI=00000000 
DS=0053  DSACC=d0f3  DSLIM=bfffffff 
ES=0053  ESACC=d0f3  ESLIM=bfffffff 
FS=150b  FSACC=00f3  FSLIM=00000030
GS=0000  GSACC=****  GSLIM=********
CS:EIP=005b:0002258d  CSACC=d0df  CSLIM=bfffffff
SS:ESP=0053:000b3878  SSACC=d0f3  SSLIM=bfffffff
EBP=000b389c  FLG=00210246

DISKIO.EXE 0002:0000258d
Disk1 is win10, disk2 is Arcaos

Saludos

3

Programming / Re: Qt6 Application Testing

« on: September 20, 2024, 08:33:27 pm »

Hello
I've been testing, the new versions of qt6-626, and I'm not convinced, they work worse than the version 632,
 I can watch the videos for a while, from 30 minutes to 1 hour and ten minutes.
 I agree with everyone else in their comments on version 626.
 I have tried to install the 632.
 My mistake :
 [113:18:0920/200539.025000:ERROR:cert_verify_proc_builtin.cc(600)] No net_fetche
r for performing AIA chasing.

But looking for the error that I get on console I found this link:
https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/issues/8040

And he says that the culprit of that mistake is libcups
https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/issues/8032

In case it helps them.
Saludos

4

Setup & Installation / Re: Target 64Tb of memory, not one less.

« on: July 22, 2024, 05:52:11 pm »

Hello
I remind you that I don't have a manual, so maybe I'll talk nonsense.
The buffers seem to be wrong, at least the value proposed by me.
Curious about this, I attach two programs, one that lists a frequency concrete,
and another that can help look for frequencies in a range, from - to.
To me, the results given by the 3cv5.cmd seem very coherent.
I remind you that in the past Buffers were two values.
One appears to be a decimal from 1 to 100, and the other hexadecimal.
From my point of view, the decimal value determines the amount of memory that is freed up.
The greater the number, the more memory.
And the hexadecimal value provides acceleration in graphs.
Based on these observations, if I set the decimal value to 100,
and focus on a frequency Compatible with this 31.25 system
I can easily calculate other hexadecimal frequencies.
 Example:
  Decimal  Hex
3125           0C35
31250          7A12
312500        4C4B4
3125000      2FAF08
31250000    1DCD650
312500000  12A05F20
3125000000 BA43B740


The one I find most interesting is 1dcd650, and you.?
The tests have to be done for several days, since although a good value is good,
it seems that some programs are interfered with others.
Saludos

5

Setup & Installation / Re: Target 64Tb of memory, not one less.

« on: June 27, 2024, 04:39:37 pm »

Thanks for the more technical explanation than mine - Ref. Redbook
But it would not hurt to verify it, in case the reality could be different.

But OS/2 is designed around a 32 bit flat memory model, meaning a single segment, and that single segment being a 4GB in size.

I have verified this line, and indeed it has to be 4gb, so it has to be changed the MEMLIMIT.exe to 4095,
so that the swapper works properly. Now I leave you with a config.sys setting that allows me to access
almost all the memory it recognizes the system when checking the BIOS, usually 3gb to 3.5gb approximately
depending on the equipment.
Everything is experimental, although I have applied it to my teams.

IFS=C:\OS2\JFS.IFS /CACHE:131072 /LW:32,128,8 /AUTOCHECK:*
...
CALL=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE /Q /C C:\OS2\CACHEJFS.EXE /LW:32,128,8 /MINBUFFER:0 /MAXBUFFER:3676 >NUL
...
SWAPPATH=C:\OS2\SYSTEM 2000 2048000
...
VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072
...
BUFFERS=16

Don't forget to change the memlimit. Reboot.

PROBLEMS:
In my case, forcing the system to exhaust all memory, when 2696 arrived, the computer crashed.
With Accessible to my system: 3 054 MB There are no prior warnings, except for this one.

You will see how many mistakes repair themselves.
If you want to run Dooble, I advise you to first open the Thunderbird or another application that eats up a
few megabytes of low memory. And is better to open a new window, that open a new tab.

Saludos

6

Setup & Installation / Target 64Tb of memory, not one less.

« on: June 23, 2024, 10:57:19 am »

For the future and other follies
I have doubts, I read that the OS/2 could manage in Voice.
"In theory the 386 processor allows for 64 terabyte of virtual memory."

http://www.os2voice.org/VNL/past_issues/VNL0708H/feature_3.html


This is something that has been around my head for some time.
And it will not be that the maximum theoretical memory is always 4GB, but that it rotates in almost endless cycles, so that for example
You have 13GB = (4GBX3)+1GB available, it will show you 1GB, but that 1GB, if spent it appears as 4GB, are spent and ... re -empecing.
If this were so, it would be good to find that number that multiplies by 3 or whatever. Somehow I think I should
exist.
Another example, it can be like if you enter a building, on the ground floor you have 4gb,
 but if you go up to the first floor you have another 4gb = 8gb keep going up floors and imagine a skyscraper
  of 100 floors = 400gb


It could also be that the memory begins at the top of the building, and goes down the way,
 without the need for a floor number. Until it runs out.

If someone would tell you today, create a 64Tb memory, and you can only direct 4gb, how would you do it?

Could it be that we are only seeing the memory that is on one floor of the building?

To help understand the memory I use the freemem.exe program, the information it provides is not valid.
But it can help to understand what I say, and also the operation of the applications, how much memory they use,
When they use it, when an application is loading, when it is dead, etc ... in real time.
This program is freemem.exe very old, and I have seen it rotate many times.
And everything continues to work. By watching it rotate I mean having 100mb of memory and going through 4gb,
 and then 3.8g....

Could it be so?

What if we are putting memory limitations where they do not exist?
I mean: If you create a program and tell it to look at the memory and close it if it's insufficient,
why not let the system decide whether or not it's insufficient.
I leave you a screenshot, you can see used 2297mb, and simultaneously 2819mb free according to Vmem = 5116mb
Here I am using the memlinit in 4095, and because it won't let me put twice as much on it. Limits!!!!
All run nice.
Saludos

** Ian has removed the attachment for the ebay listing **

7

Applications / Re: General Software Testing

« on: June 15, 2024, 12:22:04 pm »

Martin -- You can open wtih Zip Control ver 2.7.4
David -- Your file is bad, only can see the txt files, the rest is size 0.

This program work well.
This program work with the Caos teory.
Saludos

8

Applications / Re: AOS RAM Disk

« on: June 12, 2024, 05:01:39 pm »

Lines to modify the config.sys to have a JFS cache twice the current one:131072=2 x 65536 maintaining or
even increasing the available memory.
-------------------------
IFS=C:\OS2\JFS.IFS /CACHE:131072 /LW:32,128,8 /AUTOCHECK:*
...

CALL=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE /Q /C C:\OS2\CACHEJFS.EXE /LW:32,128,8 /MINBUFFER:655 /MAXBUFFER:3679 >NUL
...
BUFFERS=16
...
SWAPPATH=C:\OS2\SYSTEM 2000 1045000
...
VIRTUALADDRESSLIMIT=3072
...
--------------------------

Because of the things and notices of my experience:
How to calculate the minbuffer:
Putting Minbuffer: 0, the system will calculate the new minimum automatically returning the 655 value
How to calculate the Maxbuffer, I have been increasing the value while Private Low Memory: or the Shared Low Memory:
increase. And I reduce it, if it decreases. Looking for the values ​​of maximum memory available.

I believe that having the minimum, the important thing is the difference between these two values.

The buffers = 16, according to EDM, in case of configuring the cache, says reduce the buffers number.
20 It is also a good value.
I contribute link:
Now I can't find it.

Regarding SwaPPath, I remind you of this link, to be able to calculate Valid Swappat,
Another thing is that they work as it should, or that values ​​can work better than others:

https://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php/topic,3232.msg38051.html?PHPSESSID=4clqlps3of12k9kp8tc7rmr3cc#msg38051

In fact, if someone intends to try a 2048 1045000 swappath, you can fail the hard drive. Because
The 2048 value is not valid for the Swapper.

Also comment, that activating Hyperrating HT in many bios, 2MB are lost in Private Low Memory: and another 2MB in Shared Low Memory:
But the processors work better. Could it be the opposite? I don't know.

And that's it.

It's not all, I understand that for a simple NAS type server with few applications it can be interesting
Have less memory and more cachejfs to give better service. In this case I have the:
Buffers in 20
and the
SwaPPath = C: \ OS2 \ System 2000 2000000
and the Cache Size: 1048576 Kbytes
Minbuffer 0 or 655
Maxbuffer 7655
with the virtualaddresslimit in 1024. Only this is valid of the Page Boundary, others not and checked.
This conbination works quite well, but here there may be better.

Saludos

9

Applications / Re: AOS RAM Disk

« on: June 10, 2024, 08:04:39 pm »

Hi Dariusz
Thank you for sharing your experience and effort.
Modifying the LW about 15 or 20 years ago, experimenting sent me a computer to disaster,
and I was left with the idea of not touching it. That's why I know it's difficult.
But your values seem very good to me, the processors on the server are at ZERO or almost zero that's very good.
Now I'm trying to set up my test equipment with twice the standard cache without losing memory, using the virtualaddresslimit on 3072.
And this looks great, even with resource-depleting applications, but... requires more testing.
Saludos

10

Applications / Re: AOS RAM Disk

« on: June 09, 2024, 01:34:23 pm »

  I've still set up my ArcaOS NAS like this, but I don't see any performance improvements in file transfer.
 I'll have to do more tests.

Well, I answered me about the speed tests, and the improvement is noticeable.
A folder that normally took 23 minutes to copy is copied in 1 minute 37 seg. of 11gb.
This is from a 12tb gpt disk with 2tb x 6 partitions, to a 240mb gpt sdd disk on the same computer.
But yesterday from the network the result was poor, because the network is my bottleneck.
Saludos

11

Applications / Re: AOS RAM Disk

« on: June 08, 2024, 08:18:59 pm »

Hi Dariusz,
 You are right about many things, in fact at the beginning, it only showed me 131mb. The cachejfs.
 But reducing the virtualaddresslimit to 1024, it already shows me 1gb of cache.
 The price is the reduction of memory.
  I've still set up my ArcaOS NAS like this, but I don't see any performance improvements in file transfer.
 I'll have to do more tests.
 Your setup is very stable, I just reduced the value from 24000 to 15000.

Code: [Select]

[C:\]mem /v

Total physical memory:      8 142 MB
Accessible to system:       3 054 MB
Additional (PAE) memory:    5 088 MB

Resident memory:            1 143 MB
Available virtual memory:   3 809 MB

Available process memory:
  Private low memory:         344 MB
  Private high memory:        448 MB
  Shared low memory:          280 MB
  Shared high memory:         435 MB

[C:\]cstats
cachesize    262144   cbufs_protected       10288
hashsize     131072   cbufs_probationary     2594
nfreecbufs   248292   cbufs_inuse               0
minfree        8000   cbufs_io                  0
maxfree       15000   jbufs_protected         776
numiolru          0   jbufs_probationary      187
slrun         11064   jbufs_inuse               0
slruN        174762   jbufs_io                  0
Other             7   jbufs_nohomeok            0

[C:\]cachejfs

          SyncTime:      32 seconds
            MaxAge:     128 seconds
        BufferIdle:       8 seconds
        Cache Size: 1048576 kbytes
        Min Free buffers:    8000 (   32000 K)
        Max Free buffers:   15000 (   60000 K)
Lazy Write is enabled


[C:\]
Saludos

12

Applications / Re: AOS RAM Disk

« on: June 07, 2024, 11:31:48 pm »

Hello Dariusz
 I found your config.sys very interesting.!!
 At first I had no problems but it wasn't going well either. I have the feeling that I was missing something and maybe you are missing something.
I pass on my modifications to the config.sys, incorporating your slightly modified values.

Code: [Select]


IFS=C:\OS2\JFS.IFS /CACHE:1048576 /LW:32,128,8 /AUTOCHECK:*
CALL=C:\OS2\CMD.EXE /Q /C C:\OS2\CACHEJFS.EXE /LW:32,128,8 /MINBUFFER:8000 /MAXBUFFER:15000 >NUL
buffers=20
 SWAPPATH=C:\OS2\SYSTEM 0 512000
 SWAPPATH=C:\OS2\SYSTEM 2000 1045000
And surprise with the memory, I also attach the memory results with different values. And I really like what I see.

Code: [Select]

[C:\]mem /v

Total physical memory:      8 142 MB
Accessible to system:       3 054 MB
Additional (PAE) memory:    5 088 MB

Resident memory:              187 MB
Available virtual memory:   3 833 MB

Available process memory:
  Private low memory:         340 MB
  Private high memory:      2 240 MB
  Shared low memory:          276 MB
  Shared high memory:       2 227 MB

[C:\]cstats
cachesize     32768   cbufs_protected       10302
hashsize      16384   cbufs_probationary     2585
nfreecbufs    18938   cbufs_inuse               0
minfree        8000   cbufs_io                  0
maxfree       13000 **   jbufs_protected         681
numiolru          0   jbufs_probationary      255
slrun         10983   jbufs_inuse               0
slruN         21844   jbufs_io                  0
Other             7   jbufs_nohomeok            0

[C:\]mem /v

Total physical memory:      8 142 MB
Accessible to system:       3 054 MB
Additional (PAE) memory:    5 088 MB

Resident memory:              187 MB
Available virtual memory:   3 833 MB

Available process memory:
  Private low memory:         342 MB            *****
  Private high memory:      2 240 MB
  Shared low memory:          279 MB           ******
  Shared high memory:       2 227 MB

[C:\]cstats
cachesize     32768   cbufs_protected       10294
hashsize      16384   cbufs_probationary     2594
nfreecbufs    18941   cbufs_inuse               0
minfree        8000   cbufs_io                  0
maxfree       14000 **   jbufs_protected         747
numiolru          0   jbufs_probationary      185
slrun         11041   jbufs_inuse               0
slruN         21844   jbufs_io                  0
Other             7   jbufs_nohomeok            0

[C:\]mem /v

Total physical memory:      8 142 MB
Accessible to system:       3 054 MB
Additional (PAE) memory:    5 088 MB

Resident memory:              186 MB
Available virtual memory:   3 833 MB

Available process memory:
  Private low memory:         353 MB               *****
  Private high memory:      2 240 MB
  Shared low memory:          290 MB               *****
  Shared high memory:       2 227 MB

[C:\]cstats
cachesize     32768   cbufs_protected       10293
hashsize      16384   cbufs_probationary     2590
nfreecbufs    18944   cbufs_inuse               0
minfree        8000 **   cbufs_io                  0
maxfree       15000 **   jbufs_protected         750
numiolru          0   jbufs_probationary      184
slrun         11043   jbufs_inuse               0
slruN         21844   jbufs_io                  0
Other             7   jbufs_nohomeok            0

Pay attention that I'm using two swappaths, although only the last one is used, I haven't really tried to remove the first one, in case there is a difference or not.
Don't put the swappath on a ramdisk, it won't work well for you.
I get these memory values after restarting the computer.
Saludos

13

Applications / Re: Help with Rexx and Theseus

« on: May 06, 2024, 04:37:49 pm »

What happened to me is that when I saw that this function RT2GetLinMemMap was not in the help, I thought that maybe it opened up other functions that do exist but are not documented.
But if it's not implemented, it's not.
I'll experiment in a different way.
Saludos

14

Applications / Help with Rexx and Theseus

« on: May 05, 2024, 02:04:49 pm »

I wanted from rexx to be able to see the physical memory, as it shows it on the screen.
I need either the command or the information about it.
Similar to   call RT2GetLinMemMap but with physicalmemory, no linear memory.
Saludos

15

Applications / Re: Nomacs Image Viewer

« on: April 30, 2024, 08:19:22 pm »

Hi Tellie,
When you left us the qt6 version, I installed it, and put the qt6core.dll in the same folder of the nomacs.
I ran it and it worked perfectly, and I looked at a lot of photos and a lot of folders.
But, days later I wanted to open it again and it closed, seconds after opening. With an error in exceptq.
Editing the profile, I saw a mega line of a length of approximately 1600 columns, created with the qt6
They were the paths of each photo.
With the epm I left the line at about 600 characters.
I tried on the QT5 version, and it worked perfectly.
I put it back with the QT6 version, and it still works perfectly.
My conclusion : To have a correct profile in Qt6, you first have to have it created in Qt5.
Saludos