I have 2 systems with 3GB memory. One (xp pro) is getting just over 2.7 GB of samples loading, the other (xp media) just over 2.6 GB. What can be causing the 100MB difference?

Best,
Jay

I certainly don't know. XP media probably have some apps running that pro doesn't have...but that was certainly a non-answer... [:)]

i'd assume if you have the media center edition running, you would also have a video card on this machine - there are probably additional drivers loaded which are leaving less space for something else.
check the number of MB used memory on both machines after a reboot without starting any application - here you might find the difference.
christian

Jezz - I must be dumb or blind - I can't get the damn 3gb switch to
work. My computer reports 4gb of physical memory, but still only 2gb
is available to applications.
Could anybody please please take a look at my boot.ini file and check it?

Here it is with a dual boot which defaults to 3gb:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional 3GB" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /3GB /userva=2800
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin

Does'nt it look allright?

Still here's the system info report:
OS Name Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2 Build 2600
OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation
System Name AMD64
System Manufacturer System manufacturer
System Model System Product Name
System Type X86-based PC
Processor x86 Family 15 Model 43 Stepping 1 AuthenticAMD ~2210 Mhz
Processor x86 Family 15 Model 43 Stepping 1 AuthenticAMD ~2210 Mhz
BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 0403, 05-10-2005
SMBIOS Version 2.3
Windows Directory C:\\WINDOWS
System Directory C:\\WINDOWS\\system32
Boot Device \\Device\\HarddiskVolume1
Locale United States
Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "5.1.2600.2180 (xpsp_sp2_rtm.040803-215[H]"
User Name AMD64\\Bjk
Time Zone Romance Daylight Time
Total Physical Memory 4.096,00 MB
Available Physical Memory 1,62 GB
Total Virtual Memory 2,73 GB ?
Available Virtual Memory 2,70 GB ?
Page File Space 1,87 GB
Page File C:\\pagefile.sys
( Why it reports 2.7gb avail virtual mem and pagefile space of 1, 87 - I dont know. My pagefile on C. is only 16mb and no paging file on other disk)

The task manager reports < 2gb avail. memory - so does
the computer general properties.

The only way I can make more ram visible, is by increasing the virtual memory - then I can load up to 2.7gb of samples, but this results in swapping to disk - so no point in that.

Any input would be most welcome
thx Bjarne

Sapkiller,

I have the same problem but only on my main DAW (my 4 slaves' 3GB switch is working flawlessly.)

Rob

Hi Rob
Is your main DAW by any chance a dual cpu/core?

Bjarne,


Why yes it is!!!!!! (the only one I have). Any ideas?



Rob

Just a thought - since mine is a dual core too.
- maybe its an issue with dual systems?

Mattias - what do you think? Dual cores preventing the 3GB switch from working? Thanks for considering this.


Rob

I have intel D (which I think is dual core) that appears to load 1.6 GB of samples on a 3GB system.

--Jay

@JBacal said:

I have intel D (which I think is dual core) that appears to load 1.6 GB of samples on a 3GB system.

--Jay

Yes Jay - Mine is Intel 'D' - I think D is for Duo (or Double core). Also I think I am able to load about 1.8 or so is all on my 3GB switch machine (the other non-duo core PC's I can get about 2.8 gig.)


Rob

Rob et al,

I'm on a holiday at the moment without computers and internet access (other than my pda...). I'll be back home on the 11th and will look into the problem if you guys haven't found a solution by then.

/Mattias

Oops, I meant to type 2.6 not 1.6 on the Intel D but I'll double check today.

--Jay

@Mattias Henningson said:

Rob et al,

I'm on a holiday at the moment without computers and internet access (other than my pda...). I'll be back home on the 11th and will look into the problem if you guys haven't found a solution by then.

/Mattias

Thanks Mattias. Yea this is inexplicable. I have it set up exactly like all the other (non-duo) PC's - that are all loading 2.8 mb. Very strange.

Hi guys,

I think the dual cores are not the problem. I've got two Intel dual core machines with 3GB and the 3GB switch and FxTeleport with LAA tweak (thanks Mattias!). Both max out around 2.8GB of VI memory.

Steven

@sgentry said:

Hi guys,

I think the dual cores are not the problem. I've got two Intel dual core machines with 3GB and the 3GB switch and FxTeleport with LAA tweak (thanks Mattias!). Both max out around 2.8GB of VI memory.

Steven

Well - so much for that hypothesis then. [8-)]

@sgentry said:

Hi guys,

I think the dual cores are not the problem. I've got two Intel dual core machines with 3GB and the 3GB switch and FxTeleport with LAA tweak (thanks Mattias!). Both max out around 2.8GB of VI memory.

Steven

Well - so much for that hypothesis then. [8-)]


Bummer. Hoping for something easy. As I said, all my other (SP2) PC's are 2.8 max load. This one is about 1.9 load.


Rob

I was just reading the last page here so I apologize if I'm being redundant. If you're trying to address more than 3GB ram in a 32 bit Windows machine, it won't work. I know your motherboard spec may say it can handle 4GB or more, but windows will not address it until you upgrade to a 64 bit system. To be able to do that, you'll need a mobo and cpu that supports 64 bit architecture (e.g. AMD 64, Intel EM64T), VSL will have to release a 64 bit version of VI, you'll need a 64 bit version of your sequencer, and you'll need 64 bit drivers for your PCI cards. I don't think VI is even on the calendar yet for a 64 bit release.

For now, you can get perfectly acceptable peformance using a LAN or FX teleport network. You just need PCs that can upgrade to 3GB ram and have CPU speeds greater than 3gHz. Memory is fairly inexpensive, and both Intel and AMD are cutting prices on their currrent CPU lines in advance of the new Core 2 Duo. I just put a D950 cpu in my host machine for $225. I've overclocked it to 3.8+ and its taking everything I can throw at it. Right now I'm running 24 VI tracks, two pianos, track effects everywhere, and the thing is just humming along at 25C.

Peregrine, that's almost but not entirely true. It's possible to use up to 4GB with a 32-bit LargeAddressAware app on a Win64 system with more than 4GB installed. Win64 will use the memory above 4GB and allow for a full 4GB load in the 32-bit app as the address space won't have to be split up into system and user parts like in Win32.

/Mattias

Hi Mattias -
Specifically - a 32 bit machine, set up and operating as a 32 bit machine - will not address installed memory beyond 3GB. If you have a way to do that, everybody on the planet would like to know about it. What I'm hearing you describe is a 64 bit system supporting 32 bit legacy applications.

What I'm suggesting in a left-handed way is that if people are trying to increase VI cpu performance in a Windows environment, it is extremely easy, and quite inexpensive just to upgrade their hardware. And if they're spending a lot of time trying to tinker with a software approach, it can be much less frustrating and provides outstanding results.

I was hosting VI on a 2.4 gHz P4, and was close to choking the processor with the local and FXT tracks that were running. For $225 and 30 minutes work, I am now overclocking at 4 gHz and having no performance problems whatsoever. Until Herb releases the 64 bit version of VI, there's not much alternative to using remotes for RAM if your intent is to load and operate more than 1 or 2 libraries. For anybody that isn't in a complete rush, I'd suggest they wait a few weeks for availability of a core 2 duo machine.

best regards,
RJ