The Slow Quad Core

[robisbell]

Crusty,
word of advice do read all the posts before spouting off childish insults and unwarranted opinions.

per the OP
"Timing from hitting enter until Ubuntu was ready to use went as follows:
4gb RAM - ~3m35s
3gb RAM - ~2m20s"

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: robisbell
Crusty,
word of advice do read all the posts before spouting off childish insults and unwarranted opinions.

per the OP
"Timing from hitting enter until Ubuntu was ready to use went as follows:
4gb RAM - ~3m35s
3gb RAM - ~2m20s"

That SCREAMS hardware to me. I concur with Crusty's thoughts (all of them).

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: daveybrat
You don't want to leave him with 3Gb of ram. Then he won't be running in dual-channel mode like he is currently. You either have to leave him with 2x1GB sticks or but 2x2GB sticks, but do not use 3 sticks of ram in there. You'll degrade his performance.

2GB is pretty decent for WindowsXP and he can always swap them out with 2GB sticks down the road sometime.

Dual channel vs. Single is what - 1% faster? This is a bit silly.

 

[Skewer324]

Good morning, guys. Shame to see some flaming over the evening. Hopefully today we can keep to the topic at hand and not insult each other for reaching different conclusions.

I've read a lot of suggestions treating the problem like it was for my own machine. Trust me, guys, I'd definitely be doing some of those things if this were my own (replacing 1x4 with 2x2 or 1x3, upgrading to a 64-bit OS, etc) but it belongs to a customer and I don't want to ask him to spend more money on a computer he's spent maybe two or three days actually using. Oh, and the whole dual-channel versus not dual-channel... well, that's not the reason I want all four sticks in the mobo working. At 3gb of RAM with a quad core, his computer runs pretty darn fast.

And while in theory all 32-bit OS should use 4gb of RAM, I've never seen it actually work. I don't mean I'm the Know-All, See-All of Computers, but I understand the math behind it, but that doesn't change how it actually works. Besides, even in situations where XP runs fine with 4gb, it doesn't show 4gb because it uses the first gig of RAM from the top down to allocate hardware addresses.

So, with temperatures being normal, software eliminated, and a reproducible problem with 3 sticks versus 4 sticks, where do we now point the finger? The motherboard?

 

[robisbell]

they 4th stick will no be used by the OS in any way shape or form, and it does slow down the boot process leaving it in, bu sped up the process with the 4th stick removed. A 32bit can not use 4GB of ram, and whomever told you in theory it can, was absolutely wrong.
I'd be extremely honest with the customer and explain it again that leaving the 4th stick in that is never going to be used by the OS he's using will slow the system down, I was told telling the truth made customers trust me more, even if it was news they did not want to hear. I'd tell him the facts, be totally honest with them and lay out all of the facts for them to make a honest decision.

 

[Crusty]

Just trying to stop the spread of WRONG/FALSE information.

What's exact make/model of the RAM? It's obvious that there is a compatibility issue, so it's either find new RAM or find a new mobo that has been tested with your specific ram chips unless you want to give the computer back to him with only 3gb.

As far as 3gb vs 4gb goes in Windows, we've got around 50 dual opteron 265 boxes w/ 4GB of ram in Windows XP Pro and not a single one has slowness. We had some instability issues at first, but that was fixed with a simple relaxing of the ram timings and now we've had excellent performance and reliability. If the problem is really a software problem, it will be a driver issue NOT Windows' mysterious "max 3gb" limit but you tested that with the Linux livecd

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: robisbell
they 4th stick will no be used by the OS in any way shape or form, and it does slow down the boot process leaving it in, bu sped up the process with the 4th stick removed. A 32bit can not use 4GB of ram, and whomever told you in theory it can, was absolutely wrong.
I'd be extremely honest with the customer and explain it again that leaving the 4th stick in that is never going to be used by the OS he's using will slow the system down, I was told telling the truth made customers trust me more, even if it was news they did not want to hear. I'd tell him the facts, be totally honest with them and lay out all of the facts for them to make a honest decision.

Have you EVER run Linux 32-bit with 4gb of ram? I'm guessing not. Please please please stop spreading your false information.

 

[Skewer324]

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/...server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

From the link: "The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB." Rather than getting in arguments, guys, just cite a source and move on. This isn't a "well, I believe" issue; it's fact or false, and you need a citation from a reputable source or you're just running your mouth. I've seen a lot of heated discussion before on this issue.

I don't think it's an operating system issue. Crusty's approach to verifying RAM compatibility is what I'll try next. I personally think it'll be unlikely since I have had no other issues with it. And for at least a couple of days, it worked fine with all 4gb installed.

 

[robisbell]

you omitted the key point "using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family"

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/...server/PAE/pae_os.mspx

"Although support for PAE memory is typically associated with support for more than 4 GB of RAM, PAE can be enabled on Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003, and later 32-bit versions of Windows to support hardware-enforced Data Execution Prevention (DEP)."

"PAE Mode
PAE is the second method supported to access memory above 4 GB; this method has been widely implemented. PAE maps up to 64 GB of physical memory into a 32-bit (4 GB) virtual address space using either 4-KB or 2-MB pages. The Page directories and the page tables are extended to 8 byte formats, allowing the extension of the base addresses of page tables and page frames to 24 bits (from 20 bits). This is where the extra four bits are introduced to complete the 36-bit physical address.
Windows supports PAE with 4-KB pages. PAE also supports a mode where 2-MB pages are supported. Many of the UNIX operating systems rely on the 2 MB-page mode. The address translation is done without the use of page tables (the PDE supplies the page frame address directly)."

also

http://dailycupoftech.com/2007...a-ram-in-32-bit-vista/

"Windows uses AWE to accomplish this. From what I have read, this is more of a kludge than it is a solution, according to Microsoft:

The primary driver compatibility issues that you may experience occur when you run PAE mode on 32-bit computers. PAE mode enables processors to use more than 4 GB of memory. The primary difference between PAE memory paging schemes and non-PAE memory paging schemes is the additional level of paging that is required in PAE mode. PAE mode requires three levels of paging instead of two levels of paging.

Some drivers might not load if PAE mode is enabled because the device might be unable to perform 64-bit addressing. Or, the drivers might be written with the assumption that PAE mode requires more than 4 GB of memory. Such drivers are written with the expectation that the drivers will always receive 64-bit addresses in PAE mode and that the driver or the device cannot interpret the address. Other drivers might load in PAE mode but cause system instability by directly modifying system page table entries (PTE). These drivers expect 32-bit page table entries but receive 64-bit PTEs in PAE mode instead.

Another option is going to a 64-bit operating system."

 

[robisbell]

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

"Addressing more than 4 GB of memory is possible in a 32-bit operating system, but it takes nasty hardware hacks like 36-bit PAE extensions in the CPU, together with nasty software hacks like the AWE API. Unless the application is specifically coded to be take advantage of these hacks, it's confined to 4 GB. Well, actually, it's stuck with even less-- 2 GB or 3 GB of virtual address space, at least on Windows. OK, so we're limited to 4,096 megabytes of virtual (note, not physical) address space on a 32-bit operating system."

 

[robisbell]

and finally, a important note

"Look for applications that support AWE and PAE." if the user does not have any applications that do, then they'll never use the 4th Gb of ram.

 

[Skewer324]

I'm very willing to get into a discussion about the 3gb vs 4gb debate, however, it doesn't really have a place on this board or this thread.

Regardless, the RAM I'm using is Qimonda HYS72T128020EU-25F-B2 1GB ECC, 128Mx72, PC2-6400 5-5-5, 2 ranks x8

Intel.com doesn't specifically okay this model at Intel.com and CMTL hasn't certified it

 

[robisbell]

there's no discussion, I just posted the COLD HARD FACTS. I've explained and given you facts, you do not want to acknowledge them, I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Skewer324]

I acknowledge the facts. However, that information is basically irrelevant for my current situation. I need this machine to run normally for the customer while it has 4gb in it.

 

[robisbell]

the facts pertain to your problem, but like I said, you refuse to see that it does.

 

[Thraxen]

rosibell

You've kind of become combative toward the person you were originally trying help out... Anyway, what these other guys are saying is correct, a 32-bit OS can use 4 GB of RAM. Read your own links and quotes:

"Addressing more than 4 GB of memory is possible in a 32-bit operating system, but it takes nasty hardware hacks like 36-bit PAE extensions in the CPU"

I've bolded the key part. "More than" means that the PAE extensions are only needed when you go above 4 GB, but not for using 4 GB. Here's another article from MS that lists the limits: Link

Given this information I'd have to agree with that this seems like a hardware issue. For one thing, why would the BIOS appear to run slow if this was a Windows 32-bit OS issue? Windows isn't even loaded at that point, and the Intel DQ35JO motherboard is supposed to support up to 8 GB of RAM. So it seems obvious that there is a problem in the hardware or BIOS.

 

[robisbell]

thraxen, you're omitting that you have to hack the OS, first, then you have to find programs that can make use of the hacks to access the last 1gb of ram. you have to use PAE from 4GB and above. everyone omits the fact that the system ran faster with only 3GB versus 4GB, but, I've tried to make them see the whole picture, and you all only see parts you choose to see, and not the whole thing.

 

[Skewer324]

Switching to 3gb fixes the problem in the short run, but it sends the customer home with an extra stick of RAM and a message that says, "Well, you paid for 4gb but you don't get to use it." That's what the manufacturer said and that's why I posted here. If it were my computer, or if the computer shop I work for built it, then that's exactly what would happen. But it's not, and we've made that decision.

At my work, we feel that the customer needs to be taken care of. This situation is similar to saying, "I bought a manual transmission sports car. When I shift into 6th gear, I lose acceleration and then the speed drops off." To which the dealer you bought it from said, "When will you ever be going over 120mph? Just don't shift into 6th." Sure, it solves the problem for the dealer, but not for the buyer who's left with something they paid for not working, even if they don't get to use it, they're not getting what they paid for.

 

[robisbell]

yet if it's a flaw in the design of the car that shifting it into 6th and there only way to fix it is to upgrade the transmission then you tell them that, if they do not want to, then there's nothing that can be done. trying to shoehorn a fix for a known issue and expecting miracles and not being upfront and giving the customer the facts, is the problem with you. if the owner doe not grasp the problem, then you need to explain it till they do, I've had to explain to people, spending hour or more till the proverbial "lightbulb" comes on and they understand.

yes they paid for the 4GB ram, but they skimped on the OS, and you could try the hacks to make the OS see the 4GB VIRTUALLY ( not physically), and then the customer will have to find software versions that can use the hacks of the OS.

like i said, they have a issue, but they do not want to pay for the cure, they want a patch job and expect a 32bit OS to run like a 64bit OS. I think whomever sold them the system and OS's is the one to blame for this whole situation, but all I can say is that they can either take patch jobs and find versions of programs they will be using to make use of the virtual 4GB, or they can pony up for the 64 bit versions and have full access to the ram.

I'm done explaining the facts, and if the OP wants to keep going blindly down the path of patching the problem, good luck.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: robisbell
thraxen, you're omitting that you have to hack the OS, first, then you have to find programs that can make use of the hacks to access the last 1gb of ram. you have to use PAE from 4GB and above. everyone omits the fact that the system ran faster with only 3GB versus 4GB, but, I've tried to make them see the whole picture, and you all only see parts you choose to see, and not the whole thing.

We've already determined that the slowness IS NOT CAUSED BY WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL. Forget the fact that he has 4GB of ram in the system. What if he had 4 sticks of 512MB of ram with the same problem, would you still be saying that it's a software issue? Since he DOES have 4GB of ram, it certainly brings up the possibility of it being a software issue, but once again we've shown that it's not related to Windows.

Please stop with this nonsense.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: robisbell
yet if it's a flaw in the design of the car that shifting it into 6th and there only way to fix it is to upgrade the transmission then you tell them that, if they do not want to, then there's nothing that can be done. trying to shoehorn a fix for a known issue and expecting miracles and not being upfront and giving the customer the facts, is the problem with you. if the owner doe not grasp the problem, then you need to explain it till they do, I've had to explain to people, spending hour or more till the proverbial "lightbulb" comes on and they understand.

yes they paid for the 4GB ram, but they skimped on the OS, and you could try the hacks to make the OS see the 4GB VIRTUALLY ( not physically), and then the customer will have to find software versions that can use the hacks of the OS.

like i said, they have a issue, but they do not want to pay for the cure, they want a patch job and expect a 32bit OS to run like a 64bit OS. I think whomever sold them the system and OS's is the one to blame for this whole situation, but all I can say is that they can either take patch jobs and find versions of programs they will be using to make use of the virtual 4GB, or they can pony up for the 64 bit versions and have full access to the ram.

I'm done explaining the facts, and if the OP wants to keep going blindly down the path of patching the problem, good luck.

Yeah, the vendor made a mistake of using non certified ram in that motherboard thus causing hardware compatibility issues, not in choosing Windows XP over a 64-bit alternative.

 

[Skewer324]

Robisbell, I am not hiding anything from the customer as you repeatedly state; I am trying to make the best of the situation. Once a resolution has been reached on my end, I will fully disclose the status of the computer to the customer. Your attacks on my professionalism in this situation are entirely unmerited and incorrect. My priorities are the customer and the computer.

I guess the problem now, Crusty, is whether or not the manufacturer will accept that as sufficient evidence.

 

[piasabird]

Power supply is bad or unstable - Try replacing with good 500 Watt Model.

Hard Drive Data Corruption ? Try Defragging.

Video card or the drivers. Sometimes some video cards do not work well with some motherboards, while they will work fine on another motherboard.

Funky BIOS Settings. Also sometimes older BIOS versions can work better.

I saw that www.directron.com has sold this motherboard at their site. I think they had a forum. You could look for other people who have had problems with that motherboard or video card.

 

[rasczak]

skewer, can you run the memory at a lower speed? similar to mem divider? maybe the ram can't run at the speed it is rated at

sounds dumb but seems to me like there is an issue with that memory.

**juse realized a bit late in this thread. sounds like you've got a resolution. sorry.

 

[Skewer324]

Well, I don't exactly have a resolution. I think I'm just getting closer to identifying the issue. More ideas like that can only help.

Out for the evening; I'll check back in the morning.