From: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: EMM386 limiting memory to 32Mb
Date: 22 Jul 1998 15:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Lulea, Sweden
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <6p4use$moj$1@news.luth.se>
References: <m0yyz2w-000S4xC AT inti DOT gov DOT ar>
NNTP-Posting-Host: my21.sm.luth.se
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) (salvador AT inti DOT gov DOT ar) wrote:
: Abouthe ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg) reply to Eli:
:   You are lossing the point. What Eli says is that you must have X Mb 

You mean missing, don't you?

: of swap, he says that X Mb is the better choice. (or at least I
: interpret that ;-)

Uhm, I don't understand what you saying here. Can you clarify?

:   Normally you must put some limits to the relation
: between: Physical/Virtual to avoid huge performance degradations.
:   As an example: Windows 3.1 sets a maximun value, you can enlarge
: the swap even further, but Windows won't use it.
:   CWSDPMI doesn't have any  limit, that's good because you can
: compile a program that needs 128 Mb of RAM with only 16 Mb. But if
: you need to do it very often a good minimal limit is:  48Mb of RAM
: and 80Mb of swap. Of course you can do it with 16/112, not
: recommended at all.

Well, what you're saying, supports my point: if you have more meory
you need less swap. If what you're saying don't, you need to explain
further.

Of course if the system slows down to be almost useless, you might
take that as a hint that you need more RAM.


New Model Army, Small Town England,

                                                        MartinS