Jump to content
avw

crazy ram in 9600

Recommended Posts

I´m using mac for 12 years now, but today I got an really new "bug". My machine is an 9600 with Sonnet 800MHz and 1GB Ram and OS 9.1.

 

My mac reserves about 840MB Ram for the Finder, just using about 80 - 100MB. This Problem appears also if I disable the SystemExtentions at startup!

 

It seems to be an software-problem because if I use an other system from another volume the ram-usage is about the normal 100MB. It also was not possible to change my RAM-Disc as long as I didn´t boot from the 2nd volume.

 

Anybody any Idea, or had anybody a similar problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that system is using a hell of a lot of ram.....

yeah I know, that´s why I called it a bug/problem/crazy ;))

 

Do you have a ram disk?

I switched it off when I started from the other volume, but still without the ram disc (was 128MB) my system reserves 840 MB

 

 

Remember it´s the same with extentions off! Virex 6.2 also didn´t find anything.

 

Maybe it´s a disc problem, FirstAid tells me "invalid catalog, PEOF" and "can´t repair", and DiscWarrior had to repair manymany things, ... But can disc problems force the OS to use 840MB ram?

 

Crazy, isnt´t it? I can just reformat my disc and use a clean OS 9.1 but at the moment I´m verry interested in what causes this problems ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing as the ram disc is set at 128mb of ram, i would try booting with 64 mb of ram. If needs that much ram, you probably have a memory leak. My guess is that the computer will run out of memory while booting, and make a note of what it is loading. this should also disable the ram disk if i remember correctly. Also check your disk cache setting. There was a time that my system was using an absurd amount of ram, and it was because the disk cache was set to something like 128 mb. It is worth a shot. Let me know what you find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 9600 with Sonnet 800MHz, but I long ago reduced its RAM from 1GB to 512MB, and still have no need to use VM. Designed-in VM management was the cause of my doing so. Older Macs, with the exception only of the true 68000s (Macintosh to Classic), and the Mac II, IIx and IIcx, are typically supposed to deal with up to 1GB of VM, but when installed RAM approaches that limit, problems arise. Assuming that you have only EDO RAM in the 9600 rather than FPM, and certainly not a mixture of the two, you will find if you test the matter that about 940MB of available RAM or less is needed if the system is not to wax hysterical. Permanent isolation of, say, 128MB as a RAM Disk may solve the problem, but it is easier (physically and notionally with 128MB interleaved DIMMs) to reduce RAM to at most 768MB of installed RAM. Remember that 1GB of VM management was introduced with the SE/30, when 128MB seemed like a king's ransom in cost.

 

I haven't retested the matter since going to OS 9.2.2 from 9.1 on the 9600, so I cannot pretend to know whether that might just solve the problem. However, with OS9Helper, it is easily enough tested.

 

de

 

Second occurrence of EDO corrected to FPM.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of the larger 60x towers (9500 and 9600) boast 12 RAM slots on the MLB. Both can take 128MB (max.) DIMMS to 1536MB max. 64MB DIMMs were the ant's pants when the Macs were released, and the max. would then have been 768MB, safely short of the hysteria point. 128MB DIMMs followed later.

 

de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the heck are you doing with all that RAM in that machine! I want to know...

 

watching longer previews in Premiere

using more VST-Plugins at a time

heaving a big scratch disc directly in RAM for Photoshop or Netscape (or Mozilla)

and using acrobat much faster (without needs to close any other application)

 

And … sometimes when I´m funny I boot my system directly from Ram disc - you heavn´t seen such a fast machine before - I swear - no X will reach this!

 

 

And about my troubles … it´s still the same, but as I never use VM, it has to be anything else, I´ll come back with new ideas ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... And about my troubles … it´s still the same, but as I never use VM, it has to be anything else, I´ll come back with new ideas ...

The point about VM versus installed RAM is not that you use VM, but that the capability to use 1GB of VM apparently collides with the presence of ~940MB plus in machines that were not conceived to have more than 768MB of physical memory installed.

 

You will also note that the next cab off the rank, the Beige G3, was limited to 768MB of installed RAM even after 256MB DIMMs became available, and before that to 384MB.

 

The PCI Graphics is quoted by Apple (in Apple Memory Guide, Jan 2001, the last issue of that Guide known to me) as having a software-controlled useable limit of 1GB of installed RAM and 1GB of VM capability.

 

By the time of the DA, the physical limit was 1.5GB in three slots, with the fourth slot disabled, but the VM max. was still quoted as 1GB. I'm using a DA/733 now, but I have never tested the limit of VM because I have 1GB of physical memory in it, and I see no point in using disk-slow VM when I have PC133 RAM instead. However, there is no quarrel between installed RAM and VM apparent, nor was there in any of the many CRT iMacs (2000-2002) that I own, so Apple may have re-engineered that part of the OS.

 

VM is always going to be software-controlled. There is no arguing, short of hacking the system code, with the inbuilt limit. If that limit collides with your physical RAM, you can circumvent the problem, but not wish it away.

 

de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solved the problem, … ;)

Today I had time to "play" with my computer.

 

So I began taking off some Ram as intended. Whith 512MB installed, my system used 400MB Ram. With 128Mb my System used 114MB, ... hmm

 

Than I began with the Preferences (because I knew from earlier tests that it could´nt be the extentions or the control panels), put them all away, no solution – my system was going on to use to much Ram.

Later I installed a new system from CD at the same volume. The new system didn´t heave that problem, …

So I replaced the Finder, System, System Resources … with the new installed versions. No solution.

 

And the winner was: my Fonts Folder !

All the problems where caused by a broken Font! Every Apple-Book tells you that damaged Fonts can make really cracy things to your System, but I didn´t think about it. Maybe this informations will help anybody sometimes.

 

My MacOs is now running with 42 MB in use and everything feels fine again (with installed 1GB).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about VM versus installed RAM is not that you use VM, but that the capability to use 1GB of VM apparently collides with the presence of ~940MB plus in machines that were not conceived to have more than 768MB of physical memory installed.

 

O.k. you where right, first I didn´t get your point.

 

VM is always going to be software-controlled. There is no arguing, short of hacking the system code, with the inbuilt limit. If that limit collides with your physical RAM, you can circumvent the problem, but not wish it away.

 

But I used 1 GB of RAM in PM 8600, 9600 an UMAX S900 without any problems anytime. And because of the working systems at other volumes it was clear to me that the problem is not about this Ram-VM-Limit.

 

But thank you for the informations in any way. Interresting for me is, if you really got some problems becaus of this VM-Limit, an what you mean with "circumvent the problem".

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What the heck are you doing with all that RAM in that machine! I want to know...

 

I've got 1.5GB in my 9600 as well; did this because it was cheap, and it's nice owning one of Apple's best machines maxed out. I never paid more than $10 for my 128MB EDO DIMMS, they're really cheap now.

 

JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is still worth asking. Nothing that I did ever justified 1GB of FPM in my 9500 (now retired) nor 1GB of EDO in my 9600 or 9650, so it was little pain to downgrade both of the latter as well as the 9500 to 512MB. Need for 1GB+ can be imagined, but I haven't met one in the flesh, yet. And, yep, I also do things because they can be done ...

 

de

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×