lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) (05/04/91)
Hmm. I guess I'll jump in here with another slightly off-topic question.
I've noticed that when running with QEMM (any version) or 386MAX under
DOS 4.01, that I frequently get system crashes that go something like:
"Protection Violation at CP:031B" or
"Protected Mode Operation at CP:031B"
etc. Apparently this is caused by the CPU running into an instruction
which is only valid under protected mode. The address always points
to FASTOPEN (the IP part is always the same), regarless of whether it was
loaded in high memory or not.
I'm led to suspect that FASTOPEN has a serious bug that causes it to trash
part of itself after so many file opens and on the next file open, you
execute the trash and, of course, crash. Needless to say, Microsoft refuses
to admit to any such bug.
This has happened to me on many different systems where I've run QEMM (or
386MAX) and FASTOPEN together. Taking FASTOPEN out takes away the problem.
I wonder if, with FASTOPEN but no QEMM, I would still be crashing but not
getting the error message from QEMM. I does seem to happen to me alot more
than other people who use the same system. I wonder if it could be my heavy
usage of WPCorp's PE editor which is one program I know of that still uses
FCB file opens?
So has this happened to anyone else or does anyone have a clue what the
problem might be? I realize it's a pretty weirdo problem.
Getting further off the topic, does anyone have an opinion on the merits
of FASTOPEN in general, especially combined with SMARTDRV, BUFFERS= and
other various caching mechanisms?
Any info will be appreciated. If you can, please mail me a copy of anything
you post in response to this. Thanks.
--
John Wright //////////////////////// If it's not Scottish, it's CRAP!!!
Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8
Internet: lane@cs.dal.ca Uucp: lane@dalcs.uucp or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lanedraper@buster.cps.msu.edu (Patrick J Draper) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May3.205700.8459@cs.dal.ca> lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes: > >Getting further off the topic, does anyone have an opinion on the merits >of FASTOPEN in general, especially combined with SMARTDRV, BUFFERS= and >other various caching mechanisms? I've found fastopen to be of little value, and besides that it crashes for any reason at all. About smartdrv, pc-cache, etc: Everyone I know recommends that you set buffers=4 or some other low number when using these things, but I have found that leaving buffers at about 20 will speed things up, even with a 2 meg cache. > >Any info will be appreciated. If you can, please mail me a copy of anything >you post in response to this. Thanks. > >-- > >John Wright //////////////////////// If it's not Scottish, it's CRAP!!! >Post: c/o Dr Pat Lane, Biology Dept, Dalhousie U, Halifax N.S., CANADA B3H-4H8 >Internet: lane@cs.dal.ca Uucp: lane@dalcs.uucp or {uunet watmath}!dalcs!lane ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Draper "College is supposed to prepare you for the future, cps.msu.edu but all my future's behind me." draper@cps.msu.edu -- My GrandPa, age 85, Fall 1990 graduate of Western Michigan University ------------------------------------------------------------------------
dang@crash.cts.com (Dan Gookin) (05/05/91)
On the merits of FASTOPEN:
>> DO NOT USE THIS COMMAND! <<
FASTOPEN is a half-ass attempt at disk caching, only caching file names
and their locations. It will seriously mess with your disk, and I've
recommended in that last three DOS books I've written that no one
should use FASTOPEN.
Some dealers will use INSTALL to setup FASTOPEN in CONFIG.SYS, especially
on DOS 4 systems. Remove it. Also, if you've ever experienced any
problem with DOS insisting you always use the same floppy diskette,
blame FASTOPEN..
dang.sag@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Steve Gabrilowitz) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May3.205700.8459@cs.dal.ca>, lane@cs.dal.ca (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes: |> |> Hmm. I guess I'll jump in here with another slightly off-topic question. |> |> I've noticed that when running with QEMM (any version) or 386MAX under |> DOS 4.01, that I frequently get system crashes that go something like: |> "Protection Violation at CP:031B" or |> "Protected Mode Operation at CP:031B" |> etc. Apparently this is caused by the CPU running into an instruction |> which is only valid under protected mode. The address always points |> to FASTOPEN (the IP part is always the same), regarless of whether it was |> loaded in high memory or not. |> |> I'm led to suspect that FASTOPEN has a serious bug that causes it to trash |> part of itself after so many file opens and on the next file open, you |> execute the trash and, of course, crash. Needless to say, Microsoft refuses |> to admit to any such bug. |> FASTOPEN is very dangerous, particularly when you are multi-tasking! -- Steve Gabrilowitz Martin Marietta, Orlando Fl. sag@iplmail.orl.mmc.com Fidonet 1:363/1701