[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NT4 reliability/performance followup



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

You're probably referring to such items as File Handles and GDI resources. While
NT is not without some limits, those limits are not an issue for 99.999% of
users, especially those running Workstation. Unlike WinXX, NT was built from the
ground up as a 32 bit OS and each process runs within its own virtual machine
with each machine having a unique pool of goodies. There are many, many other
differences from direct addressing range (2gig vs 16k) to the NT file system.
Also, NT can run any 16 bit process in it's own virtual machine (NTVDM) so that
failure in one 16 bit process does not bring down the others e.g. I run Ensign
(real-time) in its own its own NTVDM and all other 16 bit processes in another
NTVDM so that a failure in another 16 bit process will not bring down Ensign. In
short, NT is nothing less than an industrial strength OS.

BTW what's the story with the change to the list address i.e. the "mx2." in
"omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"?

Earl

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Augustine <RonAug@xxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 09, 1998 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: NT4 reliability/performance followup


>
>Does anyone know if the "file selectors" issue is a factor in limiting NT
>resources, as it is in Win-95/98?
>
>If so, that could be the root of the problem, and adding a gazillion
>megabytes of Ram won't make any difference...
>___________________________________
>At 04:56 PM 7/8/98 -0300, you wrote:
>>Earl Adamy wrote:
>>
>>> In the FWIW department, the 128 meg seems to be overkill but I wasn't
>sure where
>>> the payoff would stop and it was too cheap to pass.
>>
>>This depends on what you're running.
>>
>>> Based upon what I'm seeing, I would opine that 64 meg
>>> is probably about ideal and that 96 meg would provide more than adequate
>>> cushion.
>>
>>Try running a few hundred, let alone thousands, of open charts in TS or SC
real
>>time.  This will be a humbling experience.  I figure the ideal for me would be
>>around 12 gigs (and maybe even this wouldn't be enough).
>>
>>A.J.
>>
>>
>>
>
>