Ram limit

[Marko]

Why does GS160 load fewer samples when I put more ram in my computer?

I have been using 1 gigabyte of ram ( P4, 2.8, 3 hard Seagate Barracuda drives, Gina24, W2K). One GSP file I use loads up 97% of system memory. It is quite stable. Today I added another 500 megs of ram (for a total of 1.5 gigs) and the same GSP will not load all of the files even though the system memory says 47%. GS reports \"unable to allocate memory for the instrument\".

I read somewhere that GS has a 1 gig limit when it comes to ram. But why would it load less when more ram is installed?

Is this a W2K limitation?

[Scott Cairns]

Hi Marko, this is purely a guess, but it might be worth re-installing Giga now that you have more ram.

It\'s possible that Giga looks at the available ram address ranges upon installation.

Only a guess though! images/icons/smile.gif

[dalamein]

Marko, I have some ideas for you

I build these systems you know.

There is definately ways that you can fix this.

Because of the wide possibilities, I would rather you contact me by email or phone.

Take Care

Dave

[dalamein]

Originally posted by dalamein:
Marko, I have some ideas for you

I build these systems you know.

I just built a system for a client using 2GB Ram, and am utilizing every bit of it.

There is definately ways that you can fix this.

Because of the wide possibilities, I would rather you contact me by email or phone.

Take Care

Dave <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">

[Marko]

Scott,

I re-installed GS, but the exact same thing occurs.

Why would more ram (even if it is in excess of GS limit) have this negative effect?

Any other ideas?


dalamein,

I emailed you and would like some suggestions.

Thanks

Marko

[Simon Ravn]

Because GS and W2K/XP is a weird combination.

[Marko]

Simon,

Thanks, but that does not explain much.

Is GS and W2k a weird combination precisely because of this problem?

If I did not have this problem, would you still say that GS and W2k is a weird combination?




Marko

[Disko300]

gigastudio has definatly his limits.
go to www.vsl.co.at (\"http://www.vsl.co.at\") /choose your language /formun / Gigastudio Topics there you find the thread (and other very interesting stuff) \"Memory and XP once again...\"
take 1-2 hour reading time and follow the instructions images/icons/smile.gif

[Simon Ravn]

Marko: It just seems like the conversion of GS to make it work under 2K/XP isn\'t very well done. Maybe because of some limits in the GSIF/Wavestream architecture I don\'t know. But I would say that people generally have a lot more issues with GS under XP/2K than 98....

[Nick Batzdorf]

Using half the installled memory under XP isn\'t exactly efficient, but my system just sits there and works. I\'m curious whether you\'ve personally tried XP, Simon, because I know you\'ve said this a few times and I don\'t understand it.

[Simon Ravn]

I tried GS on XP - but what\'s the point? I have to buy twice the RAM to be able to load as much as under 98. And I had a few IRQ_LESS_OR_EQUAL BSOD\'s with XP when I had GS installed on it. And what about all the problems with slow loading times. Really - I don\'t see the attraction unless you\'re a masochist.

[Disko300]

Originally posted by Simon Ravn:
I tried GS on XP - but what\'s the point? I have to buy twice the RAM to be able to load as much as under 98. And I had a few IRQ_LESS_OR_EQUAL BSOD\'s with XP when I had GS installed on it. And what about all the problems with slow loading times. Really - <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">i dont have this problems. i installed about 20-30 gigastudio computers under xp. i cant say that i never had a problem but i could fix all of them. at yur are available to load 1gb into msg.exe
also i dont beleive its the halve you can load in under xp compared to 98.
besides this its nearly imposible to sell a win98 pc to a mac user ;-)

[Nick Batzdorf]

I never had those problems, Simon, and spending $300 for 2GB of RAM in order to load 1.05GB worth of programs doesn\'t seem outrageous to me.

This isn\'t a passionate argument for XP, since this is my first Windows machine and I haven\'t used 98. But I do think it\'s the OS to buy if you\'re starting from scratch today. I\'m not a massochist at all, and I\'ve been absolutely delighted with the machine\'s performance.

But the slow loading bug is a PITA, I agree.

[christian marin]

simon, IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL is a driver problem (SCSI, soundcard, network, ect) and not related to GS, another one PROCESS_HAS_LOCKED_PAGES during a regular shutdown occurs after a GS error 5 (not enough memory to load samples) _is_ related to GS. generally i have to admit it sounds weired to have 2 GB into a machine to load 1 GB samples, but you get a very stable machine with a reliable filesystem (NTFS) on your disks ...
christian

[Simon Ravn]

Originally posted by christian marin:
simon, IRQ_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL is a driver problem (SCSI, soundcard, network, ect) and not related to GS, another one PROCESS_HAS_LOCKED_PAGES during a regular shutdown occurs after a GS error 5 (not enough memory to load samples) _is_ related to GS. generally i have to admit it sounds weired to have 2 GB into a machine to load 1 GB samples, but you get a very stable machine with a reliable filesystem (NTFS) on your disks ...
christian <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">The IRQ_LESS_OR... was definitely GS related. It only happened when GS was installed - and I believe I got rid of it by disabling filespy.sys.

And for stability - NTFS is more stable than FAT? Oh well maybe but I have never had any issues with either file system so I don\'t really understand how than can be an argument. How much do you have to worry about your filesystem? As for general stability - I have said it 110 times, I will say it once more: I have 4 GS machines that never crash under Win98SE and the terrible FAT32 filesystem.

[Alexcremers]

Simon, I was wondering, do you use the very latest version of Gigastudio 2.54? With my system it seems to be crashing a little more frequently than the previous update which I thought was rock solid under 98.

------------
Alex Cremers

[christian marin]

well, everything with a .sys-extension _is_ a driver, so you are right - if that has been the reason, it is related to gigastudio. to disable filespy is one of the first things i do after installing GS, no need here to monitor this kind of activities.
fat32 does not confirm if a file has been properly written and it happens from time to time you find unrestored files after a crash in your check-files and nowhere else on your disk.
of course you can have a very clean and stable W98-system, especially if it is a dedicated DAW, but it\'s more than a question of minutes to get it running smoothly with 1GB and various devices - no?
i even saw a W95-system last year i had set up 96 and worked like a charm until it\'s *last days*, instead of blaming the system, one often find s out the problem sits just in front of the screen ...
but my feeling regarding 2.54 is the same like alex\', 2.53.05 seems to run more stable, also on W2K/XP
christian

[gabriels]

I\'m quite interested to know how much I\'d gain by increasing from 1Gig of ram to 1.5Gig.

When I load samples I\'m able to get up to 98 or 99%. I still have a few more sounds I\'d like to load and I\'d be (at least temporarily) happy if I could add another 20% to what I can fit in memory.

Am I likely to gain that much by increasing the memory and doing the \"memory tweaks\"?
Gabriel

[Mattias Henningson]

Originally posted by gabriels:
I\'m quite interested to know how much I\'d gain by increasing from 1Gig of ram to 1.5Gig.
<font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Gabriel,

Assuming we\'re talking XP with the appropriate tweaks applied the numbers (RAM vs load limit) are as follows...

1GB - about 530MB
1.5GB - about 800MB
2GB - about 1050MB

That is, you would add about 50% by going from 1GB to 1.5GB.

/Mattias

[kitekrazy]

How are people getting W98 to work with more RAM if the OS can only use 512?
From what I understand FAT32 maximum disk size is 40gb.

[gabriels]

Mattias,
Thanks. I\'m using W2K. Would the answer be the same?
Gabriel

[gabriels]

One more thing....
Could someone please direct me to the Ram tweaks. I had the link once but can\'t find it anymore. Was it at the VSL website???
Gabriel

[Mattias Henningson]

The link to the thread on the VSL forum is here (\"http://vsl.co.at/forum/viewtopic.php?t=934\")

As far as W2K goes it\'s often the same, but there are a number of reports from people having problems getting the tweaks to work on W2K as well... The ones who have upgraded to XP (that I know of) after having these problems have had success on the same hardware with the same tweaks. If you\'re planning to do the upgrade anyway, this may be a reason to do it now.

/Mattias

[kitekrazy]

What are the benefits of Giga using more RAM?

[PeterRoos]

Originally posted by kitekrazy:
How are people getting W98 to work with more RAM if the OS can only use 512?
From what I understand FAT32 maximum disk size is 40gb. <font size=\"2\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">Two false assumptions. Windows 98 works with up to 1 Gb RAM without a problem. You may need to adjust the VCache setting in the System.ini file (do a search on this forum for this).
I have larger disks than 40 Gb, so that is also not an existing limitation.
More Ram: load more instruments into GigaStudio. Under Windows 98 with 1 Gb Ram I typically load some 100-160 different instrument patches using .GSP template files.

Win98 simply gives you most free memory for GigaStudio (in the range of 900 Mb) with \"only\" 1 Gb installed. To get the same amount under XP, you will need to install 2 Gb and do some system tweaking.

Regards,

[gabriels]

I\'ve increased my memory from 1Gig to 1.5 Gig, but haven\'t yet had the opportunity to do the tweaks.

Interestingly, I am now able to load to only 52% in Gigastudio (whereas previously I could get to 99%). I have a performance which I used to test the limits on loading instruments. This performance no longer loads completely. One instrument which used to = about 15% of the allocated space in GS won\'t load. In fact I can\'t even squeeze in one additional small instrument... so I am now able to utilize a smaller percentage of my larger available ram, and the actual total size of samples loaded (not measured in percentage of memory used... just the raw sample size) is also smaller.

I hope I can overcome this by doing the tweaks. Is this what I should expect before tweaks? Why would I be limited in this way before tweaks?
Gabriel

[gabriels]

Peter,
What you wrote tempts me to fall back to Win98SE from Win2K (even though GS under Win2K seems to have less Clicks and Pops and seems to run without ever crashing (which Win98SE did not).

Are you actually saying what it seems you are saying, and would this be true for WIN2K as well as for XP? Namely.... To get the same amount of available space for samples as I\'d get under Win98SE with 1Gig, I\'d need 2Gig in Win2K? My 1.5Gig will actually get me less space in Win2K than 1Gig in Win98? And in fact, I can\'t use more than 1Gig in Win98?
Gabriel

[PeterRoos]

Correct, Win98 has a real limit of 1 Gb (I have also verified that images/icons/wink.gif ) - but the OS has a small footprint, and does not make big reserves for itself or for disk caching. You really should be able to give at least 900 Mb to GigaStudio. Remember to set MaxFileCache and MinFileCache to 32768 in the section [VCache] of the System.ini file.

You will need something like 1,75 - 2 Gb under XP to load the same amount as under Win98 (and when you have applied the XP tweaks that Matthias found out, otherwise it is a lot worse even).

I personally would not experiment with Win2K, it is in general less flexible and supportive with audio applications and drivers.

You could also just wait until GST 3 comes out (which will probably require XP). I supports smaller prefetch buffers and has been roumored to be able to load more instruments.

[Mattias Henningson]

Peter, just out of curiouity...what is the max memory load you can get the msg32.exe up to in Win98? You mention \"should be able to reach 900MB\". That statement doesn\'t take into account that Giga itself sets a 99% limit(based on various system parameters) which might be lower than 900MB.

Gabriel, unfortunately your case seems VERY similar to the other ones having problems with Win2K, but try the tweaks before doing anything else. One thing is certain, I would NOT fall back to Win98 at this point. Giga 3 is around the corner now and it will probably require XP or at least Win2K. Like Peter said they have done some improvements in the memory handling department which will improve the maximum number of samples that can be simultaneously loaded.

/Mattias

[gabriels]

Mattias,
One last thought on this issue. I actually am seriously thinking now of pulling back from XP (which seems to be running quite nicely now with 1.5Gb and the registry tweaks -> 99% load) to 98SE, and thought you might be able to convince me that this is really undesirable.

My issue with XP is that I need to be absolutely sure that, no matter what hardware problem befalls me, I can quickly get a backup system running by using some combination of new motherboard or new computer, with Norton cloned disk drive or Norton Ghost image, or merely using the cloned drive in the existing computer or restoring from Ghost image file, if only the hard drive is at fault.

I forsee that this is either going to be awkward or expensive with XP due to the necessity for having identical or nearly identical hardware for the backup machine, and also potentially time consuming due to need to call Microsoft for activation... might not go as smoothly as I'd like, maybe, who knows.

As for GS3... I'm not really that interested in it. I play live, and GS2.54 seems to do all I need. I use many sound sources other than GS in any case, and use quite a few outboard effects anyway. I'm not sure what I'd use Rewire for, and other than the increased number of dimensions, I haven't been tempted by any features of the new version.

So my question to you is whether or not it is true that I could probably get the same number of samples loaded in GS with 1Gb of memory in 98SE as I could in XP with the tweaks and 1.5Gb loading to 99%. This 99% load just squeezes in the samples I need, though a bit more space would probably feel a bit more comfortable. My 120Gb hard drives also should pose no problems in 98SE? Any other issues?
Bye for now,
Gabriel

[JonFairhurst]

I haven't found the activation thing to be a problem. There are a few things that help ease the situation:

* You have a number of days that you can operate before activation.
* If things are not too far out of line, activation is done automatically via the Internet.
* If no Internet is available, you can upgrade in a few minutes over the phone.
* If your situation strays from the norm, you talk to a human, they take some notes and give you the activation codes.

The thing that MS wants to avoid is pirating, not normal usage, hardware upgrades or recovery from a hardware failure.

Conspiracy theorists may disagree. ;)

-Jon Fairhurst

[Joseph Burrell]

I was in this situation not so long ago and I assumed it was going to be a nightmare, but even with a lot of upgrades to the PC that died, I was still able to phone into Microsoft and got the activation code via an automated system they have set up. It was surprisingly easy.

[gabriels]

Well, ok, you've put my troubl'd mind to rest. The remaining issue, then would be whether or not 98SE would actually allow me to load more samples with less memory, ie more samples in 98 with 1Gb than in XP with 1.5Gb or even 2Gb.

Are there reasons to prefer XP over 98SE in the first place, given that GS3 is not an issue?
Gabriel