Annoyances.org
Home » Windows Me Discussion Forum » Message 1108723975 Search | Help | Home
  
Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Chunksize
Friday, February 18, 2005 at 2:52 am
Windows Me Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Jack Gulley (5917 messages posted)


I played around with the Chunksize setting at one point. Not because I was really interested in optimizing the system, but because of one application I was running that does a huge amount of disk read/writes to a large number of files and was real slow. The short story was that I found it made very little difference.

Only when I forced the disk drive down to using 8K cluster size and set chunksize to match did I see any noticeable improvement at all. But such small cluster sizes caused other problems.

I also found that as I increased memory size, any differences in performance due to changing chunksize became even more negligible. Mainly because actual SwapFile usage decreased.

This prompted me to increase my system memory size. At 640MB of ram the performance problem almost went away, as the whole application and all of its data now could fit into memory and Windows ME's disk cache. I was no longer using the SwapFile.

This then prompted me to write my own version of the application which ran 24 times faster. Right now I have to live with it running slower because the current system board is not reliable with more than 512MB of memory, and the application runs best with over 700MB. (1GB of ram was nice while it lasted until the system board and processor went out day.)

I also found one web page where the chunksize was tested and he found much the same results. See: Chunksize Optimization Guide. Note he was doing this on Windows 98 with only 128MB of ram, and not where the improved SwapFile and disk cache logic of Windows ME makes almost all SwapFile optimization unnecessary.

In theory, if you were trying to run Windows ME on a 64MB or smaller system, setting the chunksize to 4096 bytes to match the page swap size should give you the best performance, but even then I suspect it would still be almost a negligible difference.

So for Windows ME, my answer to almost all SwapFile optimization questions is: Let Windows ME handle it, defrag the swapfile when you can, and add more RAM.


Written in response to:
re: powrprof.dll andwinspool.drv errors after mistaken deleting (Sgt: Thursday, February 17, 2005 at 5:02 pm)

There are presently no replies to this message.

All messages in this thread [show all]
-powrprof.dll andwinspool.drv errors after mistaken deleting (Paul Young: Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 6:34 am)
*re: powrprof.dll andwinspool.drv errors after mistaken deleting (Sgt: Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 8:27 am)
-re: powrprof.dll andwinspool.drv errors after mistaken deleting (Jack Gulley: Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 12:54 pm)
-re: powrprof.dll andwinspool.drv errors after mistaken deleting (Sgt: Thu, Feb 17, 2005, 5:02 pm)
*re: Chunksize (Jack Gulley: Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 2:52 am)
-After the re-install..... (Paul Young: Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 3:36 am)
-re: After the re-install..... (Jack Gulley: Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 4:23 am)
*re: After the re-install..... (Paul Young: Fri, Feb 18, 2005, 8:11 am)
Return to the Windows Me Discussion Forum


All content at Annoyances.org is Copyright © 1995-2008 Creative Elementtm All rights reserved.
Please do not plagiarize; redistributing these pages without permission is strictly prohibited.