From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: OS/2 bigot meets NT....
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:24:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec25.180324.15834@donau.et.tudelft.nl> linstee@dutecaj.et.tudelft.nl (Erik van Linstee) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
i	[2 pages of same stuff deleted]

>>	Install OS/2 2.0 on a 16 meg system.  Adjust the cache sizes to 
>>	what is proper for a 16 megger (read: OS/2 isn't bright about 
>>	this)--you know, HPFS and the whole deal.
>
>Is it supposed to change your settings then whenever you change
>your amount of memory? 

	No, but the normal cache setting for OS/2 is
	a poor choice for anyone with 8 megs or more.  

	We can assume that either NT is the same (and the original
	user, with 16 megs, has adjusted it) or that it auto-adjusts.
	If the later, then my argument is eliminated. 


>On what bases should it do that? Is there
>some heuristic technique that allows it to choose a proper setting
>by itself? 


	I do not know whether it does or not.  But I am *certain* 
	that if it does not, the previous owner would have fixed it
	for his 16 meg system.


>Would you want a system to change the parameters you
>have carefully selected? 


	Such a system would not have "parameters carefully selected"



>If you mean it could make a suggestion
>when it finds a change, I agree, but no more than that.



	You're thinking like a dos user.  It is not a bad idea to have
	the system auto-adjust and *allow* the user to fix it when you're
	talking about something that's suposed to be user friendly.  



>>	Take this system, back it up, and put it on a 6 megger.  The 
>>	system will run so poorly and be so unstable that you'd think
>>	OS/2 was written by a bunch of monkeys with typewriters.
>
>Let me see now. Having OS/2 installed on a 6 megger and then
>adjusting the memory settings of the 16 meg system would
>result in the exact same setup right?

	...only if you then took *that* setup (the one optimized for
	16) and moved it *back* to a 6 megger w/o *any* change.


>In other words, OS/2 becomes instable if you change your
>cache settings? 


	OS/2 behaves funny when you have low memory and are using
	the HPFS.  IBM tech support themselves will recommend 
	not using HPFS if you have less than 8 megs and I have
	been told this is not only because it slows the system to
	a crawl, but because a system with the swap file on an 
	HPFS partition with 6 megs or less will have problems
	(I was told this two seperate times by two seperate IBM techs).

	I think there's a comment to this effect in the faq, too.


>I find that highly unlikely, and if indeed this
>would be the case, it shows poor programming.

	You said it, not me.


> However,
>I see no reason for it to be so, since, the same effect would be
>gotten when the system becomes low on memory for other reasons,
>like too many jobs. 
>poorly) but it does not affect stability. Stability is not a
>function of memory available, so the system is most likely to
   ^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^   ^^^^^^


	Obviously, you never used the 2.0 beta, which became
	about 90% less stable when it started to use virtual memory.
	This was before they plugged most of the big holes 
	in VM.  VM is not something simple, it is just more room
	for bugs to hide in.  So what this guy is doing is roughly
	equiv. to running the OS/2 beta in 4 megs--with it 
	configured for 8--so *of course* it's slow and unstable.



>remain as stable or unstable as it was before the memory change.


	Nope.  OS/2 had more than it's share of VM induced
	instability (still does, probably--might explain some
	of those funny "impossible to explain" crashes, but it seems
	pretty solid since the SP).


>I am sure this is easy enough to understand.


	Think a little more before such comments.



-- 
       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"

     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.