On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Maxim S. Shatskih
wrote:
>> Stick a good quality flash drive in a USB slot and use that to accelerate your performance…
>
> 25MB/s on USB2 vs 150MB/s on SATA? a win?
>
What about USB 3 flash drive?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff356869.aspx
“Computers with fast hard disks (such as 7,200- or 10,000-RPM disks)
might realize minimal performance gains because of the already high
disk I/O.”
Does a super-speed USB 3 Flash driver will help in this case?
–
Xiaofan
On 04/08/2011 08:48 PM, Tim Roberts wrote:
[The] situation is crying out for one of the new solid state disks.
As I see it, an SSD is excellent for storing the boot and build system,
but not for a build server work drive.
[Some SSDs seem to become much slower for writes once they have been
filled up once. Even Flash wear might become an issue.]
An external 2GB or 4GB SATA RAM Disk using ‘slow’ RAM should be
affordable but still considerably faster than any rotating drive.
钢陈 wrote:
My purpose to buildup a ramdisk is the same with you.
And I also want to know is there a way windows can support reserve
memory for specific usage
I said so earlier in the thread. Have you read the whole thread?
I will say it again. There is a parameter you can use in boot.ini
(/BURNMEM) or bcdedit (/burnmemory) that sets aside part of your memory
so that Windows won’t touch it. You can then go map that memory as if
it were part of your device.
The disadvantage, as I mentioned in my earlier message, is that no one
is in control of that memory. There is no authority, so there is no way
to know whether there are other drivers that think THEY own the memory
as well. Now, that’s not likely, but it’s not impossible.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Tim,
How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
/BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
get their tools to work.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> I will say it again. There is a parameter you can use in boot.ini
> (/BURNMEM) or bcdedit (/burnmemory) that sets aside part of your memory
> so that Windows won’t touch it. You can then go map that memory as if
> it were part of your device.
>
Don Burn wrote:
How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
/BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
get their tools to work.
Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader? 
I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Don Burn wrote:
> > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
> > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
> > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > get their tools to work.
>
> Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
>
> I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
>
> On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Would this region be listed somewhere in that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its information
from>?
Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I figure,
assuming that it works, of course.
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Don Burn wrote:
> > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
> > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
> > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > get their tools to work.
>
> Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
>
> I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
>
> On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\RESOURCEMAP\System Resources
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin O’Brien [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:53 PM
To: ‘Windows System Software Devs Interest List’
Subject: RE: [ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
Would this region be listed somewhere in that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its information
from>?
Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I figure,
assuming that it works, of course.
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Don Burn wrote:
> > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
> > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
> > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > get their tools to work.
>
> Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
>
> I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
>
> On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Nope that registry includes all the memory, and while there maybe a
location for this reserved stuff I did not find it (though I haven’t
looked at the sources).
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\RESOURCEMAP\System Resources
>
>
> mm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin O’Brien [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:53 PM
> To: ‘Windows System Software Devs Interest List’
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> Would this region be listed somewhere in > that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its information
> from>?
>
> Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I figure,
> assuming that it works, of course.
>
>
> mm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
> Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
>
> “Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
> > Don Burn wrote:
> > > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory used
> > > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine where
> > > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > > get their tools to work.
> >
> > Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
> >
> > I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> > area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> > of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> > from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> > doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
> >
> > On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
> >
> > –
> > Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
Yes, it includes all, but there are subblocks there. Is it one of those? I
have no idea, and I don’t have /burnmem setup.
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:23 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
Nope that registry includes all the memory, and while there maybe a
location for this reserved stuff I did not find it (though I haven’t
looked at the sources).
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\RESOURCEMAP\System Resources
>
>
> mm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin O’Brien [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:53 PM
> To: ‘Windows System Software Devs Interest List’
> Subject: RE: [ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> Would this region be listed somewhere in > that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its
information
> from>?
>
> Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I figure,
> assuming that it works, of course.
>
>
> mm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
> Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
>
> “Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
> > Don Burn wrote:
> > > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory
used
> > > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine
where
> > > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > > get their tools to work.
> >
> > Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
> >
> > I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> > area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> > of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> > from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> > doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
> >
> > On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
> >
> > –
> > Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it
since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks
in Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people
were doing with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why
would you want /maxmem” and were totally clueless.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Yes, it includes all, but there are subblocks there. Is it one of those? I
> have no idea, and I don’t have /burnmem setup.
>
>
> mm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:23 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> Nope that registry includes all the memory, and while there maybe a
> location for this reserved stuff I did not find it (though I haven’t
> looked at the sources).
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
>
> “Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\RESOURCEMAP\System Resources
> >
> >
> > mm
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin O’Brien [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:53 PM
> > To: ‘Windows System Software Devs Interest List’
> > Subject: RE: [ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
> >
> > Would this region be listed somewhere in > > that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its
> information
> > from>?
> >
> > Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I figure,
> > assuming that it works, of course.
> >
> >
> > mm
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
> > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> > Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
> >
> > It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
> > Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
> >
> >
> > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> > Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> > Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> > Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > “Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> >
> > > Don Burn wrote:
> > > > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory
> used
> > > > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > > > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > > > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine
> where
> > > > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who had
> > > > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could not
> > > > get their tools to work.
> > >
> > > Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
> > >
> > > I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> > > area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the amount
> > > of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> > > from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> > > doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
> > >
> > > –
> > > Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> > > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> >
> >
> > —
> > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
> >
> > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> > http://www.osr.com/seminars
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
I see what you’re saying.
Alas.
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it
since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks
in Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people
were doing with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why
would you want /maxmem” and were totally clueless.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> Yes, it includes all, but there are subblocks there. Is it one of those?
I
> have no idea, and I don’t have /burnmem setup.
>
>
> mm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:23 PM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> Nope that registry includes all the memory, and while there maybe a
> location for this reserved stuff I did not find it (though I haven’t
> looked at the sources).
>
>
> Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
>
>
>
>
> “Martin O’Brien” wrote in message
> news:xxxxx@ntdev:
>
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\HARDWARE\RESOURCEMAP\System Resources
> >
> >
> > mm
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin O’Brien [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:53 PM
> > To: ‘Windows System Software Devs Interest List’
> > Subject: RE: [ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
> >
> > Would this region be listed somewhere in > > that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its
> information
> > from>?
> >
> > Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing, I
figure,
> > assuming that it works, of course.
> >
> >
> > mm
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
> > [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:48 PM
> > To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> > Subject: Re:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
> >
> > It is not at the highest address it is somewhere in the middle.
> > Basically once Vista came along the whole reserve memory approach died.
> >
> >
> > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
> > Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
> > Website: http://www.windrvr.com
> > Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > “Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> >
> > > Don Burn wrote:
> > > > How do you find the region? The old /MAXMEM limited the memory
> used
> > > > and one could determine the highest address. Unless they changed
> > > > /BURNMEMORY it essentially reserved a region as the memory was being
> > > > setup, but there was never in systems up to XP a way to determine
> where
> > > > that memory was. When Vista eliminated /MAXMEM I had clients who
had
> > > > tools for inhouse only that used the /MAXMEM technique that could
not
> > > > get their tools to work.
> > >
> > > Isn’t that left as an exercise for the reader?
> > >
> > > I haven’t thought about that. You’d have to assume that the cut out
> > > area was at the highest physical address. You can determine the
amount
> > > of physical memory (by probing, if nothing else) and count backwards
> > > from there. Since the whole concept is delicate to begin with, that
> > > doesn’t add too much to the delicacy.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I wouldn’t do it.
> > >
> > > –
> > > Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> > > Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
> >
> >
> > —
> > NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
> >
> > For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> > http://www.osr.com/seminars
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> > http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
>
>
> —
> NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
>
> For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
> http://www.osr.com/seminars
>
> To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
> http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
The equivalent of /MAXMEM on Vista+ is bcdedit /set truncatememory:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff542205(VS.85).aspx
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks in Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people were doing with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why would you want /maxmem” and were totally clueless.
Interesting, when was this added / documented it certainly was not
documented when Vista came out.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Pavel Lebedynskiy” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> The equivalent of /MAXMEM on Vista+ is bcdedit /set truncatememory:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff542205(VS.85).aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks in Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people were doing with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why would you want /maxmem” and were totally clueless.
Forgot about this one.
I’m not sure exactly, but it’s been there at least since the 6001.18002
‘RTM.’
mm
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 4:02 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] RE:reserve memory for specific usage
Interesting, when was this added / documented it certainly was not
documented when Vista came out.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Pavel Lebedynskiy” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> The equivalent of /MAXMEM on Vista+ is bcdedit /set truncatememory:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff542205(VS.85).aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com
[mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it
since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks in
Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people were doing
with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why would you want
/maxmem” and were totally clueless.
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at
http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
It looks to me like the support was there with RTM. You can definitely find posts talking about this bcdedit option (/truncatememory) in the 2006 era if you look closely around – as to whether it was or wasn’t on MSDN in 2006, I have no idea.
- S
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
Subject: RE:[ntdev] RE:reserve memory for specific usage
Interesting, when was this added / documented it certainly was not documented when Vista came out.
Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD)
Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting
Website: http://www.windrvr.com
Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr
“Pavel Lebedynskiy” wrote in message
news:xxxxx@ntdev:
> The equivalent of /MAXMEM on Vista+ is bcdedit /set truncatememory:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff542205(VS.85).aspx
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com] On Behalf Of Don Burn
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: Windows System Software Devs Interest List
> Subject: RE:[ntdev] reserve memory for specific usage
>
> It is somewhere in the middle of the largest block, but not all of it since it contains the kernel. Believe me I spoke to a number of folks in Redmond, who either said “oops” since they understood what people were doing with /MAXMEM or went “duh, we always used /burnmenory, why would you want /maxmem” and were totally clueless.
—
NTDEV is sponsored by OSR
For our schedule of WDF, WDM, debugging and other seminars visit:
http://www.osr.com/seminars
To unsubscribe, visit the List Server section of OSR Online at http://www.osronline.com/page.cfm?name=ListServer
> The disadvantage, as I mentioned in my earlier message, is that no one
is in control of that memory. There is no authority
That’s why MmAllocatePagesForMdl is better.
–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
> that I no longer recall that MmGetPhysicalMemoryRanges gets its information
from>?
Undocumented and sketchy, to be sure, but better than guessing
Here are MmPhysicalMemoryBlock global variable values for Win7 SP1 32bit, without /set truncatememory and with /set truncatememory to 3GB:
no truncate:
NumberOfRuns = 00000002
NumberOfPages = 000cf61e
Run[0].BasePage = 00000001
Run[0].PageCount = 0000009e
Run[1].BasePage = 00000100
Run[1].PageCount = 000cf580
truncate to 3GB (0xc0000000):
NumberOfRuns = 00000002
NumberOfPages = 000bff9e
Run[0].BasePage = 00000001
Run[0].PageCount = 0000009e
Run[1].BasePage = 00000100
Run[1].PageCount = 000bff00
–
Maxim S. Shatskih
Windows DDK MVP
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com