No! That is my wife's photograph.
<< Fortunately no serious damage done.
Is that picture in the "contact us " tab, You? >>
<< Fortunately no serious damage done.
Is that picture in the "contact us " tab, You? >>
yep had a print out of what to do from your site....
1 netcap/? it installs the netmon driver & i do see 2 devices
2 netcap/remove - it removes the netmon driver
3 goto device manager see 2 cards listed one rem'd out - " its just here it falls over there are not 2 cards listed?"
i didnt try to reboot after step 1 should i have done?
thanks for the help
1 netcap/? it installs the netmon driver & i do see 2 devices
2 netcap/remove - it removes the netmon driver
3 goto device manager see 2 cards listed one rem'd out - " its just here it falls over there are not 2 cards listed?"
i didnt try to reboot after step 1 should i have done?
thanks for the help
I am not able to login yesterday as my internet connection was down. I am writing this from office today using a different id (I don't remember password of old id and do not have access to email account right now due to internet being down due to CABLE ISP outage). But I would try to respond to everyone as soon as I can.
Thanks,
ad1729
Thanks,
ad1729
Hello Folks,
Some New updates on the site. Tips page has been broken into sets of 25 for easier navigation and faster load. Total Number of Tips have been increased to 72.
thanks.
ad1729
http://xptools.tripod.comhttp://xptools.tripod.com
Some New updates on the site. Tips page has been broken into sets of 25 for easier navigation and faster load. Total Number of Tips have been increased to 72.
thanks.
ad1729
http://xptools.tripod.comhttp://xptools.tripod.com
Added 1 more tip with total being 73. Also added a mirror site at
http://www.geocities.com/xptipstricks
http://www.geocities.com/xptipstricks
Hi Folks,
Me again. Just to let you know total number of tips at http://xptools.tripod.com bumped up to 75.
two mirror sites added.
they are
http://xptips.tripod.com
http://www.geocities.com/xptipstricks
ad1729
Me again. Just to let you know total number of tips at http://xptools.tripod.com bumped up to 75.
two mirror sites added.
they are
http://xptips.tripod.com
http://www.geocities.com/xptipstricks
ad1729
Pages like this spread plenty of misinformation about OS configuration and this one is no exception, I'm sorry to say.
I can read from the descriptions of half your "tips" that you don't know exactly what they are doing and you are just "changing them for the hell of it". Some of them, such as the IoPageLockLimit hack, are things that those of us NT 4.0 Admins have known about for YEARS, and trust me, you are not going to get anything out of it. Especially when you don't even know what it does.
Not to mention that advising people to turn off their pagefile is potentially very harmful, due to the XP kernel's dependence on virtual memory...
Tip #32 is also one that people should definitely not be messing with.
However, I am glad that you are not spreading the most BSish "Windows XP tip" of them all -- editing the [386Enh] section in the system.ini to allocate more memory for the IRQ of the network card. That's got to take the cake as the stupidest "tweak" I've ever seen.
Also glad to see you took people's advice on the SecondLevelDataCache entry.
I can read from the descriptions of half your "tips" that you don't know exactly what they are doing and you are just "changing them for the hell of it". Some of them, such as the IoPageLockLimit hack, are things that those of us NT 4.0 Admins have known about for YEARS, and trust me, you are not going to get anything out of it. Especially when you don't even know what it does.
Not to mention that advising people to turn off their pagefile is potentially very harmful, due to the XP kernel's dependence on virtual memory...
Tip #32 is also one that people should definitely not be messing with.
However, I am glad that you are not spreading the most BSish "Windows XP tip" of them all -- editing the [386Enh] section in the system.ini to allocate more memory for the IRQ of the network card. That's got to take the cake as the stupidest "tweak" I've ever seen.
Also glad to see you took people's advice on the SecondLevelDataCache entry.
Hello LocutusX,
I think I can not say much more than the fact that you are partially correct and have a right to your opinion. I am glad that you have prior knowledge of IoPageLockLimit. It is true that system tries to calculate the best possible value for this key at install time but you still can benefit in certain situations by changing it. (though in many situations you may even degrade performance if you do not have enough RAM ) If it were only me who feltl like that it would have been another story, but there are other takers for this tip as well. And I first got hint on this tip from none other than Microsoft. May 1999 MSDN services article which specifically deals with Microsoft NT 4.0 Performance Tuning has explicit mention of it. If I could be wrong, so would be Microsoft, creator of the OS as well.
visit MSDN at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnexnt99/html/ewn9951.asp
Here is the section that I am cuting/pasting right from MSDN for your quick reference.
Boost file I/O
By default, NT allows up to 512k of memory to be locked for I/O operations. If your system has high file activity and more RAM than it can really use, you can speed up your file system by increasing this amount from the default 512k to 4M or more. In Regedit, drill down to the key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\
Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
In the right-hand pane, locate the value IoPageLockLimit. This entry is the maximum number of bytes that can be locked for I/O operations. When the value is 0, NT defaults to 512K. To change the value, select IoPageLockLimit, then choose Modify from the Edit menu. Select Decimal or Hexadecimal as the base for your entry and enter the new value. Click OK. Before you make any changes, use Performance Monitor to monitor Average Disk Sec/Transfer for your logical disks. Be sure to monitor performance over a period of time that represents your typical file system activity. Increase the size in small increments and monitor performance again until you see no further improvement. A reasonable maximum limit for this value is one-eighth of your total system memory.
I have only 1/2 GB of RAM and I tested this tip on removing PAGEFILE. I ran my system for good 7 days with NO PROBLEMS before changing the settings again (for different reasons of testing out other tips and the fact that you gain somewhere you loose somewhere and you have to set your priorities) Doing this does improve performance of certain activities but did have problems when too many applications were open. So I would say you are partially right. If you understand OS concepts , PAGING concept came into being primarily because of limited availability of RAM due to cost issues. Now SDRAM is so cheap and I have seen peoples with RAMS lik 1GB or 1.5 or even 2 GB. I guess for these group, they sure can try this TIP OUT... Yes I know that OS CONCEPTS and REAL OS are two different things. But come on, If System Kernel depends so havily on PAGING, thats the fault with OS... I mean why should I need paging at all if I have 2 or 4 GB of RAM ? Would you describe me what good reason would it serve (other than being a good idea in worst case scenario of 100s of open application where PAGING BECOMES A MUST ! Think this that many users do not have more than 5-8 apps open at a time ) ...also enlighten me on the PAGING dependency if you will.... I would sure put your comments on the page if I can convince my self that its an ABSOLUTE MUST !!!!!!!
I fail to understand whats wrong with TIP#32. I have heard people even trying out OVERCLOCKING (which we know could be dangerous) All I am saying the changing the clock priority. It works great on my machine. Some intelligent comments as to why this should not be altered ? I would sure welcome your constructive criticism.
I think I can not say much more than the fact that you are partially correct and have a right to your opinion. I am glad that you have prior knowledge of IoPageLockLimit. It is true that system tries to calculate the best possible value for this key at install time but you still can benefit in certain situations by changing it. (though in many situations you may even degrade performance if you do not have enough RAM ) If it were only me who feltl like that it would have been another story, but there are other takers for this tip as well. And I first got hint on this tip from none other than Microsoft. May 1999 MSDN services article which specifically deals with Microsoft NT 4.0 Performance Tuning has explicit mention of it. If I could be wrong, so would be Microsoft, creator of the OS as well.
visit MSDN at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnexnt99/html/ewn9951.asp
Here is the section that I am cuting/pasting right from MSDN for your quick reference.
Boost file I/O
By default, NT allows up to 512k of memory to be locked for I/O operations. If your system has high file activity and more RAM than it can really use, you can speed up your file system by increasing this amount from the default 512k to 4M or more. In Regedit, drill down to the key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\
Control\Session Manager\Memory Management
In the right-hand pane, locate the value IoPageLockLimit. This entry is the maximum number of bytes that can be locked for I/O operations. When the value is 0, NT defaults to 512K. To change the value, select IoPageLockLimit, then choose Modify from the Edit menu. Select Decimal or Hexadecimal as the base for your entry and enter the new value. Click OK. Before you make any changes, use Performance Monitor to monitor Average Disk Sec/Transfer for your logical disks. Be sure to monitor performance over a period of time that represents your typical file system activity. Increase the size in small increments and monitor performance again until you see no further improvement. A reasonable maximum limit for this value is one-eighth of your total system memory.
I have only 1/2 GB of RAM and I tested this tip on removing PAGEFILE. I ran my system for good 7 days with NO PROBLEMS before changing the settings again (for different reasons of testing out other tips and the fact that you gain somewhere you loose somewhere and you have to set your priorities) Doing this does improve performance of certain activities but did have problems when too many applications were open. So I would say you are partially right. If you understand OS concepts , PAGING concept came into being primarily because of limited availability of RAM due to cost issues. Now SDRAM is so cheap and I have seen peoples with RAMS lik 1GB or 1.5 or even 2 GB. I guess for these group, they sure can try this TIP OUT... Yes I know that OS CONCEPTS and REAL OS are two different things. But come on, If System Kernel depends so havily on PAGING, thats the fault with OS... I mean why should I need paging at all if I have 2 or 4 GB of RAM ? Would you describe me what good reason would it serve (other than being a good idea in worst case scenario of 100s of open application where PAGING BECOMES A MUST ! Think this that many users do not have more than 5-8 apps open at a time ) ...also enlighten me on the PAGING dependency if you will.... I would sure put your comments on the page if I can convince my self that its an ABSOLUTE MUST !!!!!!!
I fail to understand whats wrong with TIP#32. I have heard people even trying out OVERCLOCKING (which we know could be dangerous) All I am saying the changing the clock priority. It works great on my machine. Some intelligent comments as to why this should not be altered ? I would sure welcome your constructive criticism.
Hi,
For now I can just give you more info on the IOPageLockLimit issue. Basically what appears to have happened is that Microsoft really revamped how that module works when going from NT4 --> Win2K and even tweaked it a bit more going from Win2K -> WinXP. As a result, the default value of "0" does not imply "512K" but rather invokes a self-tuning system which isn't something as simple as "if ram = x then set value = y".
Anyways it is certainly possible that with a lot of time and attempts, you can come up with an optimal IOPageLockLimit, but that only applies to whatever "tasks" or "operations" you are using in that test. i.e. the best IOPageLockLimit value for video capture may degrade I/O performance when compiling a large project. Which is why I believe 0 is the best value especially for Win2K and WinXP, due to improvements in the I/O subsystem as well as the self-tuning mechanism.
For now I can just give you more info on the IOPageLockLimit issue. Basically what appears to have happened is that Microsoft really revamped how that module works when going from NT4 --> Win2K and even tweaked it a bit more going from Win2K -> WinXP. As a result, the default value of "0" does not imply "512K" but rather invokes a self-tuning system which isn't something as simple as "if ram = x then set value = y".
Anyways it is certainly possible that with a lot of time and attempts, you can come up with an optimal IOPageLockLimit, but that only applies to whatever "tasks" or "operations" you are using in that test. i.e. the best IOPageLockLimit value for video capture may degrade I/O performance when compiling a large project. Which is why I believe 0 is the best value especially for Win2K and WinXP, due to improvements in the I/O subsystem as well as the self-tuning mechanism.
Hi Rig,
I must agree that value of IOPageLimit will not be the all ways good and it may be a good idea to let the WINDOWS XP take care of itself. My objective was to let users know that it exists and would be beneficial for some. But if someone does not know what he/she is doing, its better to avoid such registry tweaks.
AD
http://xptools.tripod.com
I must agree that value of IOPageLimit will not be the all ways good and it may be a good idea to let the WINDOWS XP take care of itself. My objective was to let users know that it exists and would be beneficial for some. But if someone does not know what he/she is doing, its better to avoid such registry tweaks.
AD
http://xptools.tripod.com
Website's look and feel has been changed in accordance with the feedback received so far. Now site uses features of Cascaded Style Sheet. Do drop in your comments and suggestions. This update also changes the table size to 800 pixel so that people with 1024X768 or higher do not need to scroll. Site best viewed in 1024X768 or higher resolution. I think this should even be an improvement for those who have 800X600 screen resolution even though they might still need to scroll. Thanks for all the suggestions so far!
Thanks,
http://xptools.tripod.com
Thanks,
http://xptools.tripod.com
Hi nortexoid,
As promised I have added a link to categorized tips as well. Sorry for it took so long. ALSO I HAVE ADDED THE SEARCH ENGINE for SITE SEARCH. Do let me know your comments.
<< lots of good stuff - i wonder though if you could categorize them at all...
perhaps categorize them by effectiveness (to say, which ones yield, generally, better all round performance gains) or by some other category (i.e. networking, video, hardware, etc.)...
otherwise, good stuffs... >>
As promised I have added a link to categorized tips as well. Sorry for it took so long. ALSO I HAVE ADDED THE SEARCH ENGINE for SITE SEARCH. Do let me know your comments.
<< lots of good stuff - i wonder though if you could categorize them at all...
perhaps categorize them by effectiveness (to say, which ones yield, generally, better all round performance gains) or by some other category (i.e. networking, video, hardware, etc.)...
otherwise, good stuffs... >>
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter