srh@docwrk.UUCP (Steven R. Houser) (06/29/89)
I just started running compressed news on my 7300, which has only 512K of
RAM. compress runs really slow on this machine, and slows down other
processes almost to a standstill.
compress and unbatch usually have to run for about 2 hours to get the day's
news ready to read. For these hours, the hard disk is spinning rapidly,
grinding loudly as if it's overtaxed. I imagine the disk swap space is
working overtime.
My question: will overworking the disk like this cause it to die an early
death? Or isn't it anything to worry about? Would more RAM help the problem?
--
Steven R. Houser The Document Workshop | "Man is the only animal who
| laughs--or needs to."
srh@docwrk.UUCP CompuServe 71401,373 |
uunet!osu-cis!n8emr!uncle!oink!docwrk!srh | Mark Twainelliston@rob.UUCP ( Keith Elliston) (06/30/89)
In article <44@docwrk.UUCP>, srh@docwrk.UUCP (Steven R. Houser) writes: > I just started running compressed news on my 7300, which has only 512K of > RAM. compress runs really slow on this machine, and slows down other > processes almost to a standstill. I have a similar situation... I have a 512K 7300, and would like to upgrade the memory. What is the best way to go about this... replace the motherboard memory, buy and expensive RAM board and populate it with lots of chips, what?? I am really new to this game.. (exp mostly with Vaxen), and any advice is much appreciated. -Keith =============================================================================== Keith O. Elliston | Usenet: uunet!rob!elliston Senior Information Scientist | Arpanet: rob!elliston@uunet.uu.net Merck Sharp & Dohme Res. Lab. | Bitnet: elliston%rob.uucp@psuvax1 Rahway, NJ 07065 U.S.A. | -or- elliston@biovax =============================================================================== Disclaimer: I can have no OFFICIAL comments about anything........ =============================================================================== > | laughs--or needs to." > srh@docwrk.UUCP CompuServe 71401,373 | > uunet!osu-cis!n8emr!uncle!oink!docwrk!srh | Mark Twain
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (07/02/89)
Regarding upgrading the memory of a 512KByte motherboard 7300 ... So far I've upgraded one of my three 7300s. I chose to upgrade the motherboard myself since I have the tools and experience to do it properly. Even then, it took ~12 hours and IS tedious. The parts required to upgrade my 7300 were: 1 74F258 72 Augat machined 16-pin sockets 72 256Kx1 150nS DRAM chips (used both Hitachi HM50256P-15 and NEC D41256C-15 since I just happened to have a few tubes of each in my "standard stock.") 1 jumper wire, made by clipping a lead from a resistor. My system(s) already have a resistor pack at RP4, so I didn't have to do insert a new one. A motherboard upgrade presents you with zero wait-state memory. Expansion RAM cards have (apparently) 1 wait-state. The choice of a motherboard swap, direct motherboard upgrade, or adding a RAM expansion card will have to depend on your [de-]soldering skills and the costs of the three choices; I cannot make that decision for you. But I *CAN* say that a RAM upgrade is definitely worth every penny you put into it in terms of improved system performance. I put 2 systems side by side, one with 2MB motherboard and the other with 512K motherboard, and started the same things on both (otherwise) identically-configured systems ... the 2MB system wins every time, in many cases VERY noticeably. Personally I would recommend (somehow) bringing your motherboard up to 2MB, then adding 1.5MB or 2MB RAM expansion (depends whether you use the EIA/RAM combo card (1.5MB max) or just a 2 MB RAM expansion card (which can be "made" by upgrading a 512K RAM card). Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]
kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) (07/02/89)
In article <44@docwrk.UUCP> srh@docwrk.UUCP (Steven R. Houser) writes: >I just started running compressed news on my 7300, which has only 512K ... >My question: will overworking the disk like this cause it to die an early >death? Or isn't it anything to worry about? Would more RAM help the problem? I don't know for sure about the disk, but I can't imagine that thrashing the swap area is good for it. I *do* know that more RAM will help the problem. Even another 512K, up to 1MB on the machine, will make compress much less painful to use. Until you can get more memory, try using the -b12 option on compress. It will then use smaller tables and thus less memory. Offhand I can't recall if it's enough less to keep from thrashing in 512K, but it should be a lot better. Make sure your newsfeed generates 12 bit compress batches too. -- Karl Swartz |UUCP {ames!hc!rt1,decvax!zinn}!ditka!kls 1-505/667-7777 (work) |Internet kls@rt1.lanl.gov 1-505/672-3113 (home) |BIX kswartz "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." (Twain)
dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US (David H. Brierley) (07/03/89)
In article <2464@ditka.UUCP> kls@ditka.UUCP (Karl Swartz) writes: >Until you can get more memory, try using the -b12 option on compress. It >will then use smaller tables and thus less memory. Offhand I can't recall >if it's enough less to keep from thrashing in 512K, but it should be a lot >better. Make sure your newsfeed generates 12 bit compress batches too. If you want to see an incredible increase in processing speed, rebuild the compress program so that it is only capable of doing a 12 bit compression. I did this on my machine and instead of taking almost a minute to compress a batch file it now only takes 8 seconds. I also speeded things up by making a fake rnews program that uncompressed the incoming batch and stored it in the .rnews directory and later have the real rnews run from cron. The primary reason for all of the thrashing when you are doing an uncompress or a compress -b12 is the size of the executable. By building a special version of compress with smaller tables you make the executable smaller and thus are less likely to require swapping. The fake rnews that I built had the code for doing an uncompress without having all the huge tables required for doing a compress and was thus much smaller. The fake rnews is almost as fast as doing a copy, even when your news feed sends a batch that has been compressed with the full 16 bit compression. I have 1 meg of memory so I am a little better off than the person who only has 512K but I am still concerned about squeezing every last ounce of power out of this machine. If anyone is interested in the fake rnews program let me know and I will send you a copy. -- David H. Brierley Home: dave@galaxia.Newport.RI.US {rayssd,xanth,lazlo,mirror}!galaxia!dave Work: dhb@rayssd.ray.com {sun,decuac,gatech,necntc,ukma}!rayssd!dhb