|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Earl,
The issue as described to me by Omega Tech Support has to do with File
Selectors. I don't know if these are the same as "Handles", but I seem to
recall that they might be two different entities.
The "Selectors" have been discussed on the list before. There are about
7200 of them available after a fresh Win-95 boot and they are depleted quite
rapidly by TS and its charting program. I monitor the selector pool with a
program named WMEM.EXE. If I am using too many resources and the pool drops
below 1000, I know I'm headed for a crash.
Since NT runs everything in an isolated partition, my question is whether or
not the selector issue still applies to NT. If you or anyone knows the
answer to this question, please post it.
_______________________________________
At 05:53 AM 7/10/98 -0600, you wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
|