Title: SFS issue Post by: boleary on May 26, 2012, 01:58:22 pm Weird, the largest SFS I can get is exactly 414-one tick higher is a no go. Using 16 gigs of memory should allow for a higher SFS? To you various and sundry XX Guru's, any thoughts on what might be causng the limitation?
Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 26, 2012, 02:29:38 pm Maybe you have a video card with much memory (addressing) ? I am not sure, but possibly you have to think that each MB it can address, is eaten from the main memory.
A bit difficult is that the SFS can't be directly mapped to consumed memory (not with quite some work on my side), but let's say that 500 equals 2GB somewhere. This means that 400 would be some 400MB (1/5th) less or IOW you'd miss 400MB - hence the video card could consume 400MB more than you want. Hey, that's a lot of assumptions. But I don't know of anything else, except for maybe not all the memory is seen in the first place. What does the below tell in your case ? (this is an 8GB system, nothing allocated by XXEngine3 at this time) Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: boleary on May 26, 2012, 04:01:08 pm Don't know if this is significant, but i have less kernel memory? Might that be the problem?
Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 26, 2012, 04:31:25 pm Not that I can imagine.
Quote (this is an 8GB system, nothing allocated by XXEngine3 at this time) I said this for a reason. What's your case ? Already allocated I suppose ? Anyway, this looks quite the same as my 430 (which then would have 3.89GB in use). So, dead end. Better ask someone else. :) :swoon: PS: I'm fairly sure I recall someone else having the same problem (forum). Maybe 4 weeks or so ago. I also recall he solved it. Maybe you can find it ? (I have no time of coure haha) Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: CoenP on May 26, 2012, 04:39:09 pm I had an issue with sfs and 8gigs. If irc it was a videomemory issue. All accellerators off, lowest possible clock and low screen resolution solved it.
Regards, Coen Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 26, 2012, 04:55:48 pm And Brian, is this with Minimized OS ? (*and* with all shut off !) ... If not, that can be your problem ...
PS: Thanks Coen. Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: boleary on May 27, 2012, 02:24:41 pm Thanks Cohen and Peter. Still no solution.
Quote What does the below tell in your case ? (this is an 8GB system, nothing allocated by XXEngine3 at this time) With nothing allocated by Engine 3 the memory use is 1.22 gig. Quote If irc it was a videomemory issue. All accellerators off, lowest possible clock and low screen resolution solved it. My graphics card is a cheap ($39) ASUS branded ATI 5450, fanless, with one gig of memory. reducing clock speed to lowest, lowest resolution, etc, makes no difference. Though the sound is phenominal I'd like to have all working properly. Do you think using a card with less memory would make a difference? Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 27, 2012, 03:16:36 pm Quote the memory use is 1.22 gig. Which is around 500MB too much. Quote with one gig of memory There you go. Don't you have your old card hanging around ? if so, try it ... Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: manisandher on May 27, 2012, 04:09:00 pm Guys, I've had similar SFS 'problems' in the past. It seems that something doesn't like certain odd SFS numbers. Try 416 instead of 415 and see what happens.
Sorry for not highlighting this a long while ago - I just never thought it a big deal. Mani. Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 27, 2012, 04:50:51 pm Hey, TRUE !
(solved for 0.9z-7 of course :yes:) For now, only try even numbers ... Peter Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: boleary on May 28, 2012, 04:11:20 pm Thanks for all the input. Problem was solved with a 512 mb Nvidia card. Really it makes no sense to me that the ASUS, 1 gig, card caused this SFS limitation. I rebooted numerious times using different SFS values with the ASUS card and it just wouldn't work over 414. I finally gave up when I got the following message:
Ha! Title: Re: SFS issue Post by: PeterSt on May 28, 2012, 04:20:39 pm LOL!
But as expected, the video's card memory eats the address space implied by it. So, swap in one with 256MB and again you will have 256 MB more (512 - 256). That's how it works ... |