Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Disable swap file

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:16:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

How can I disable the Win98 swap file?

It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
and I would like to prevent that from happening.

This is relating to my own programming.

Thanks for any help.

Jack

More about : disable swap file

Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

System Properties, Performance tab. There's a button there.

But you'd better be *real* sure you have plenty of RAM to handle
whatever comes down the pike.

You're doing your own programming and you don't know how to disable the
Swap file? Perhaps you should be looking for more training in ways to
manage your code so that the swap file ceases to become an issue? Just a
thought...

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
>
> How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
>
> It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
> and I would like to prevent that from happening.
>
> This is relating to my own programming.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Jack
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Control Panel, System, Performance, Virtual Memory tab (etc).
Generally NOT a good idea.

J. Yazel wrote:
> How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
>
> It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
> and I would like to prevent that from happening.
>
> This is relating to my own programming.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Jack
Related resources
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 6:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Gary S. Terhune wrote:
> System Properties, Performance tab. There's a button there.
>
> But you'd better be *real* sure you have plenty of RAM to handle
> whatever comes down the pike.
>
> You're doing your own programming and you don't know how to disable the
> Swap file?

LOL. That's a good catch! Yeah, now this sounds a bit fishy to me.

> Perhaps you should be looking for more training in ways to
> manage your code so that the swap file ceases to become an issue? Just a
> thought...
>
> --
> Gary S. Terhune
> MS MVP Shell/User
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
> http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
>
> "J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
> news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
>>
>> How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
>>
>> It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
>> and I would like to prevent that from happening.
>>
>> This is relating to my own programming.
>>
>> Thanks for any help.
>>
>> Jack
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 7:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

In addition to Gary's response, be aware that some programs expect to see a
swap file (even though they might not use it) and will not run properly
without it.

--
Regards

Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
>
> How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
>
> It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
> and I would like to prevent that from happening.
>
> This is relating to my own programming.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Jack
>
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:06:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:26 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org>
wrote:

>System Properties, Performance tab. There's a button there.
>
>But you'd better be *real* sure you have plenty of RAM to handle
>whatever comes down the pike.
>
>You're doing your own programming and you don't know how to disable the
>Swap file? Perhaps you should be looking for more training in ways to
>manage your code so that the swap file ceases to become an issue? Just a
>thought...
=================================

Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.

First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time to
time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes to
making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.

The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
to prevent loss of the long file names.

More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently. Ninety-
five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only when I
am running this program (or something similar).

When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work against the
swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when the
"real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the "real"
I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different bytes in
the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.

I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during the
run of a specific program.

I do appreciate your attempt to help.

Jack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 2:43:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

So, you're looking for a way to "programmatically" disable Virtual
Memory temporarily. Sorry, that's out of my league.

Backup programs may not suit your needs, but popular "imaging" programs
sound like what you're attempting.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:26 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune"
<grystnews@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
> >System Properties, Performance tab. There's a button there.
> >
> >But you'd better be *real* sure you have plenty of RAM to handle
> >whatever comes down the pike.
> >
> >You're doing your own programming and you don't know how to disable
the
> >Swap file? Perhaps you should be looking for more training in ways to
> >manage your code so that the swap file ceases to become an issue?
Just a
> >thought...
> =================================
>
> Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.
>
> First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
> assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
> frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time
to
> time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
> don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
> source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes
to
> making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.
>
> The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
> to prevent loss of the long file names.
>
> More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently.
Ninety-
> five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only
when I
> am running this program (or something similar).
>
> When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work
against the
> swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when
the
> "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the
"real"
> I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different
bytes in
> the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.
>
> I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during
the
> run of a specific program.
>
> I do appreciate your attempt to help.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
March 21, 2005 12:10:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

:< I don't know much about Virtual Memory, either Gary --- how can I learn
more about it. TIA (any good book you suggest I need to read about it)

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uQkV8meLFHA.656@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: So, you're looking for a way to "programmatically" disable Virtual
: Memory temporarily. Sorry, that's out of my league.
:
: Backup programs may not suit your needs, but popular "imaging" programs
: sound like what you're attempting.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
: news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com...
: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 12:48:26 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune"
: <grystnews@mvps.org>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >System Properties, Performance tab. There's a button there.
: > >
: > >But you'd better be *real* sure you have plenty of RAM to handle
: > >whatever comes down the pike.
: > >
: > >You're doing your own programming and you don't know how to disable
: the
: > >Swap file? Perhaps you should be looking for more training in ways to
: > >manage your code so that the swap file ceases to become an issue?
: Just a
: > >thought...
: > =================================
: >
: > Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.
: >
: > First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
: > assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
: > frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time
: to
: > time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
: > don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
: > source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes
: to
: > making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.
: >
: > The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
: > to prevent loss of the long file names.
: >
: > More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently.
: Ninety-
: > five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only
: when I
: > am running this program (or something similar).
: >
: > When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work
: against the
: > swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when
: the
: > "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the
: "real"
: > I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different
: bytes in
: > the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.
: >
: > I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during
: the
: > run of a specific program.
: >
: > I do appreciate your attempt to help.
: >
: > Jack
: >
: >
: >
:
March 21, 2005 12:11:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

AFAIK, the .swp file is locked. I may be confusing this with something else
386.swp --- <???> Any help is appreciated on this issue.

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
:
: How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
:
: It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
: and I would like to prevent that from happening.
:
: This is relating to my own programming.
:
: Thanks for any help.
:
: Jack
:
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:43:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:43:55 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org>
wrote:

>So, you're looking for a way to "programmatically" disable Virtual
>Memory temporarily. Sorry, that's out of my league.
>
>Backup programs may not suit your needs, but popular "imaging" programs
>sound like what you're attempting.
===============

O.K., thanks very much. I'll keep looking.

I actually am looking for a way similar to what was mentioned (disabling
virtual memory through the Control Panel), except without booting the
machine twice just to run a program.

A "programmatical" disable would be acceptable as a second choice.

I've been using this program for many years and other than what I asked
for, it works better than any available program (for my needs), since one
minute I'm in Windows and the next I'm in DOS.

Jack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:45:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:11:37 -0700, "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

>AFAIK, the .swp file is locked. I may be confusing this with something else
>386.swp --- <???> Any help is appreciated on this issue.
>
>"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
>news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
>:
>: How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
>:
>: It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
>: and I would like to prevent that from happening.
>:
>: This is relating to my own programming.
>:
>: Thanks for any help.
>:
>: Jack
>: ===========================

It's only locked to you and I.

I'm looking for a way to have Windows do it (without re-booting constantly).

Thanks.

Jack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 4:51:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:54:12 -0600, "Ron Badour" <Sorry@NoAddress.com> wrote:

>In addition to Gary's response, be aware that some programs expect to see a
>swap file (even though they might not use it) and will not run properly
>without it.
==========

I definitely will be very careful during the disable period.

Thanks.

Jack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:44:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It's not the swap file that's causing you a problem. Whether or not the swap
file is involved in a copy operation should be completely invisible to a
properly written program, whether DOS or Windows.

You need to investigate why the messages from the copy or compare process
aren't properly handled by your application. From your description it seems
that you are invoking DOS utilities to do the copy and compare for you.
This can mean that your application is not around to handle the error codes
returned by these processes. I can't think of any other way that your
program could be 'almost finished' before these messages are generated.

If this is the way that the program is written, you need to look at how it
is invoking these processes, and what you can change to ensure that it waits
until the process is completed before either moving on to the next task or
handling the returned error.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com...
> snip <
>
> Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.
>
> First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
> assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
> frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time to
> time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
> don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
> source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes to
> making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.
>
> The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
> to prevent loss of the long file names.
>
> More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently.
> Ninety-
> five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only when
> I
> am running this program (or something similar).
>
> When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work against
> the
> swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when the
> "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the
> "real"
> I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different bytes
> in
> the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.
>
> I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during the
> run of a specific program.
>
> I do appreciate your attempt to help.
>
> Jack
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:44:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Jeff Richards wrote:
> It's not the swap file that's causing you a problem. Whether or not the
swap
> file is involved in a copy operation should be completely invisible to a
> properly written program, whether DOS or Windows.

Exactly.

> You need to investigate why the messages from the copy or compare process
> aren't properly handled by your application. From your description it
seems
> that you are invoking DOS utilities to do the copy and compare for you.
> This can mean that your application is not around to handle the error
codes
> returned by these processes. I can't think of any other way that your
> program could be 'almost finished' before these messages are generated.
>
> If this is the way that the program is written, you need to look at how it
> is invoking these processes, and what you can change to ensure that it
waits
> until the process is completed before either moving on to the next task or
> handling the returned error.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
> news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com...
>> snip <
>>
>> Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.
>>
>> First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
>> assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
>> frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time to
>> time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
>> don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
>> source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes to
>> making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.
>>
>> The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
>> to prevent loss of the long file names.
>>
>> More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently.
>> Ninety-
>> five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only
when
>> I
>> am running this program (or something similar).
>>
>> When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work against
>> the
>> swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when the
>> "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the
>> "real"
>> I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different bytes
>> in
>> the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.
>>
>> I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during the
>> run of a specific program.
>>
>> I do appreciate your attempt to help.
>>
>> Jack
March 21, 2005 6:44:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Jeff can the swap file in 98SE easily be hacked? TIA

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:uCPZfCdLFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: It's not the swap file that's causing you a problem. Whether or not the
swap
: file is involved in a copy operation should be completely invisible to a
: properly written program, whether DOS or Windows.
:
: You need to investigate why the messages from the copy or compare process
: aren't properly handled by your application. From your description it
seems
: that you are invoking DOS utilities to do the copy and compare for you.
: This can mean that your application is not around to handle the error codes
: returned by these processes. I can't think of any other way that your
: program could be 'almost finished' before these messages are generated.
:
: If this is the way that the program is written, you need to look at how it
: is invoking these processes, and what you can change to ensure that it
waits
: until the process is completed before either moving on to the next task or
: handling the returned error.
: --
: Jeff Richards
: MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: "J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
: news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com...
: > snip <
: >
: > Thanks for the answer. However, I didn't clearly state what I need.
: >
: > First, the program I am referring to is not a Windows program, but an
: > assembler (MASM) program. It is a mass copy program that I use very
: > frequently between machines. I wrote my own because I have from time to
: > time various versions of Windows and DOS and most backup programs
: > don't cover this. In addition, most backup programs don't compare the
: > source and target files after the copy. I'm a nut case when it comes to
: > making sure that a copy is in fact, valid.
: >
: > The program, however, must be able to run in a Windows DOS window
: > to prevent loss of the long file names.
: >
: > More importantly, I don't want to disable the swap file permanently.
: > Ninety-
: > five percent of the time it will be enabled. It will be disabled only
when
: > I
: > am running this program (or something similar).
: >
: > When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work against
: > the
: > swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when the
: > "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the
: > "real"
: > I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include different bytes
: > in
: > the source and target files, different file dates, times, size, etc.
: >
: > I was actually looking for a way to disable the swap file only during the
: > run of a specific program.
: >
: > I do appreciate your attempt to help.
: >
: > Jack
:
:
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 6:44:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:40 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
wrote:

>It's not the swap file that's causing you a problem. Whether or not the swap
>file is involved in a copy operation should be completely invisible to a
>properly written program, whether DOS or Windows.
>
>You need to investigate why the messages from the copy or compare process
>aren't properly handled by your application. From your description it seems
>that you are invoking DOS utilities to do the copy and compare for you.
>This can mean that your application is not around to handle the error codes
>returned by these processes. I can't think of any other way that your
>program could be 'almost finished' before these messages are generated.
>
>If this is the way that the program is written, you need to look at how it
>is invoking these processes, and what you can change to ensure that it waits
>until the process is completed before either moving on to the next task or
>handling the returned error.
================

Thanks very much for the response.

Jack
March 22, 2005 4:54:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Have you tried calling Microsoft and asking them. If you cannot figure it
out then maybe I will give them yet another call --- remember 98SE is now
only paid support so you may be on your own with this one.


"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:sf5u31hnbm3d4ria91bdj8cvnero6t4bai@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:11:37 -0700, "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
:
: >AFAIK, the .swp file is locked. I may be confusing this with something
else
: >386.swp --- <???> Any help is appreciated on this issue.
: >
: >"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
: >news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
: >:
: >: How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
: >:
: >: It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
: >: and I would like to prevent that from happening.
: >:
: >: This is relating to my own programming.
: >:
: >: Thanks for any help.
: >:
: >: Jack
: >: ===========================
:
: It's only locked to you and I.
:
: I'm looking for a way to have Windows do it (without re-booting
constantly).
:
: Thanks.
:
: Jack
:
:
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:00:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

J. Yazel <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in
news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com:

>
> When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work
> against the
> swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when
> the "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during
> the "real" I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include
> different bytes in the source and target files, different file dates,
> times, size, etc.
>


I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off the
disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that I don't
know offhand.

the function of the swap file is different, It stores inactive executable
and data memory so you can run more programs than physical ram will allow,
but it doesn't act as a disk cache. It would be useless to have a disk
cache reside on a the same physical media that you're trying to cache, it
would seriously hurt performace rather than help.
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 5:00:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:00:05 +0000 (UTC), hashi <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off the
>disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that I don't
>know offhand.
>
>the function of the swap file is different, It stores inactive executable
>and data memory so you can run more programs than physical ram will allow,
>but it doesn't act as a disk cache. It would be useless to have a disk
>cache reside on a the same physical media that you're trying to cache, it
>would seriously hurt performace rather than help.
>
===============================

Great!! You have just made my day (by ruining my plans).

I've been working on the wrong thing all of this time.

Now I can start over by learning about the disk cache. I don't know
how I ignored that. Probably because I don't program the O/S, I guess.

Many thanks (seriously).

Jack
March 22, 2005 10:58:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Ah, that makes sense. Thank you and on to editing the registry yet again.
<boys and girls --- make sure you all back-up the registry before editing it
so you will have a back-up and I do not suggest even tinkering with the
registry unless you have an expert by your side or you are the expert> LOL!!
:~>

"hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9620CB8603112776852d3f2@news.aioe.org...
: J. Yazel <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in
: news:12hs31pbnukff1vuulrh8abujs4p1f7qvn@4ax.com:
:
: >
: > When I run the program, the disk writes and reads actually work
: > against the
: > swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished when
: > the "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during
: > the "real" I/O, the program can't handle it. Typical errors include
: > different bytes in the source and target files, different file dates,
: > times, size, etc.
: >
:
:
: I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off the
: disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that I don't
: know offhand.
:
: the function of the swap file is different, It stores inactive executable
: and data memory so you can run more programs than physical ram will allow,
: but it doesn't act as a disk cache. It would be useless to have a disk
: cache reside on a the same physical media that you're trying to cache, it
: would seriously hurt performace rather than help.
:
:
:
March 22, 2005 11:01:11 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Another suggestion is finding a friend who will help you with your computer.

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:sf5u31hnbm3d4ria91bdj8cvnero6t4bai@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:11:37 -0700, "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:
:
: >AFAIK, the .swp file is locked. I may be confusing this with something
else
: >386.swp --- <???> Any help is appreciated on this issue.
: >
: >"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
: >news:4amr311dppfsfub0nu1cpi9lbe90isftdl@4ax.com...
: >:
: >: How can I disable the Win98 swap file?
: >:
: >: It causes some of my processing to occur out of sequence
: >: and I would like to prevent that from happening.
: >:
: >: This is relating to my own programming.
: >:
: >: Thanks for any help.
: >:
: >: Jack
: >: ===========================
:
: It's only locked to you and I.
:
: I'm looking for a way to have Windows do it (without re-booting
constantly).
:
: Thanks.
:
: Jack
:
:
March 22, 2005 11:37:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Yeah, Jack -- Jeff Richards, MVP really knows a lot and I am really glad that
he is in this newsgroup. :>

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:1r4u31dpu1jnci2l0htb62u0rc7d7t3g0i@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:44:40 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
: wrote:
:
: >It's not the swap file that's causing you a problem. Whether or not the
swap
: >file is involved in a copy operation should be completely invisible to a
: >properly written program, whether DOS or Windows.
: >
: >You need to investigate why the messages from the copy or compare process
: >aren't properly handled by your application. From your description it
seems
: >that you are invoking DOS utilities to do the copy and compare for you.
: >This can mean that your application is not around to handle the error
codes
: >returned by these processes. I can't think of any other way that your
: >program could be 'almost finished' before these messages are generated.
: >
: >If this is the way that the program is written, you need to look at how it
: >is invoking these processes, and what you can change to ensure that it
waits
: >until the process is completed before either moving on to the next task or
: >handling the returned error.
: ================
:
: Thanks very much for the response.
:
: Jack
:
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 4:14:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It's just a file like any other - not encoded or anything. So I guess it
wouldn't be difficult to access it. Why you would want to is a mystery.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:e1Sf6AjLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Jeff can the swap file in 98SE easily be hacked? TIA
March 22, 2005 4:14:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It is a mystery to me as well but as of this year it seems like the whole
Chaos theory that Gary S. Terhune was talking about is taking effect. I
definately am going to read that book now that these events have happened.
Have a great day and I was sad about the shooting that happened yesterday on
the remote and poor Native American Reservation.

In Memory of One of the Greatest MVPs,
Alex Nichol (You will always be in our Hearts here at Microsoft)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:%23BiyBToLFHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
: It's just a file like any other - not encoded or anything. So I guess it
: wouldn't be difficult to access it. Why you would want to is a mystery.
: --
: Jeff Richards
: MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
: news:e1Sf6AjLFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: > Jeff can the swap file in 98SE easily be hacked? TIA
:
:
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't know or
care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that detail is taken
care of by the operating system.

If your program is bypassing Windows and accessing the disk directly then
Windows' caching will be an issue.

Why not post the segment of code in which you actually invoke the file copy
operation or the file compare operation? That way someone can see if
there's a different way of doing it that can avoid the problem.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:sc4v31th9a7t7e6i3u2j77hiefk8o6o50c@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:00:05 +0000 (UTC), hashi <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off the
>>disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that I don't
>>know offhand.
>>
>>the function of the swap file is different, It stores inactive executable
>>and data memory so you can run more programs than physical ram will allow,
>>but it doesn't act as a disk cache. It would be useless to have a disk
>>cache reside on a the same physical media that you're trying to cache, it
>>would seriously hurt performace rather than help.
>>
> ===============================
>
> Great!! You have just made my day (by ruining my plans).
>
> I've been working on the wrong thing all of this time.
>
> Now I can start over by learning about the disk cache. I don't know
> how I ignored that. Probably because I don't program the O/S, I guess.
>
> Many thanks (seriously).
>
> Jack
>
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:06:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
news:udKDnRpLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:

> The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
> problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't
> know or care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that
> detail is taken care of by the operating system.

I'd like furthur explanation of this. How is the swap file involved when
he's trying to avoid reading cached data while trying to verify written
data?
March 22, 2005 6:06:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Many thanks, Jeff. I have never seen such a clear and concise response to
that question. Have a great day! :>

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:udKDnRpLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
: The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
: problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't know
or
: care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that detail is taken
: care of by the operating system.
:
: If your program is bypassing Windows and accessing the disk directly then
: Windows' caching will be an issue.
:
: Why not post the segment of code in which you actually invoke the file copy
: operation or the file compare operation? That way someone can see if
: there's a different way of doing it that can avoid the problem.
: --
: Jeff Richards
: MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: "J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
: news:sc4v31th9a7t7e6i3u2j77hiefk8o6o50c@4ax.com...
: > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:00:05 +0000 (UTC), hashi <me@privacy.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off
the
: >>disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that I
don't
: >>know offhand.
: >>
: >>the function of the swap file is different, It stores inactive executable
: >>and data memory so you can run more programs than physical ram will
allow,
: >>but it doesn't act as a disk cache. It would be useless to have a disk
: >>cache reside on a the same physical media that you're trying to cache, it
: >>would seriously hurt performace rather than help.
: >>
: > ===============================
: >
: > Great!! You have just made my day (by ruining my plans).
: >
: > I've been working on the wrong thing all of this time.
: >
: > Now I can start over by learning about the disk cache. I don't know
: > how I ignored that. Probably because I don't program the O/S, I guess.
: >
: > Many thanks (seriously).
: >
: > Jack
: >
:
:
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:13:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:54:50 -0700, "Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote:

>Have you tried calling Microsoft and asking them. If you cannot figure it
>out then maybe I will give them yet another call --- remember 98SE is now
>only paid support so you may be on your own with this one.
>
==========================

I'm not a business and can't afford that kind of help.

Jack
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 6:28:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:06:15 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
wrote:

>The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
>problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't know or
>care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that detail is taken
>care of by the operating system.
>
>If your program is bypassing Windows and accessing the disk directly then
>Windows' caching will be an issue.
>
I'm not bypassing Windows. It uses standard DOS calls.

>Why not post the segment of code in which you actually invoke the file copy
>operation or the file compare operation? That way someone can see if
>there's a different way of doing it that can avoid the problem.

Thanks, but the program is not open source. There are also 5,000 lines
of code in the program. It would be difficult to pick out what somebody might
need to come up with an answer. Besides, I'm not looking for a programming
answer, just a way to quickly turn off and on the caching without booting
the system over and over.

Jack
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:09:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if the
files are being accessed properly.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9621135A21753776852d3f2@news.aioe.org...
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
> news:udKDnRpLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
>> The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
>> problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't
>> know or care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that
>> detail is taken care of by the operating system.
>
> I'd like furthur explanation of this. How is the swap file involved when
> he's trying to avoid reading cached data while trying to verify written
> data?
March 23, 2005 12:09:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Thanks and Jeff do you know what process(es) are involved? TIA

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:ugyRTcsLFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
: Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if the
: files are being accessed properly.
: --
: Jeff Richards
: MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: "hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
: news:Xns9621135A21753776852d3f2@news.aioe.org...
: > "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
: > news:udKDnRpLFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
: >
: >> The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
: >> problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't
: >> know or care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that
: >> detail is taken care of by the operating system.
: >
: > I'd like furthur explanation of this. How is the swap file involved when
: > he's trying to avoid reading cached data while trying to verify written
: > data?
:
:
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 12:49:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
news:ugyRTcsLFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if
> the files are being accessed properly.

If I may ask, why can you ignore the disk cache when you're trying to
perform read-after-write verify?

consider the following...

C:\>dir out.bin
OUT BIN 1,457,000 03-22-05 9:04p out.bin

C:\>copy out.bin a:\
1 file(s) copied

C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
FC: no differences encountered

(System Monitor shows the fc operation was entirely cache hits, there was
no floppy disk access...after some other disk access to flush the disk
cache...)

C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin

Read fault error reading drive A
Abort, Retry, Fail?a

Seems pretty clear that you can't ignore the cache when you want to confirm
that the written data is valid.
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:00:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

There are no DOS calls that can disable Windows file caching. If you can
establish a connection to Windows you may be able to create a system message
that instructs Windows to flush the cache (I doubt that you need to turn it
off). Any good reference on DOS programming under Windows should have a
chapter on how to do that.

However, a cache problem would be revealed as unexpected end of file
problems or in compare failures when you know the data is OK. This doesn't
sound like your problem.

If you aren't prepared to share fragments of your code or information about
your program structure then I doubt that anyone can help.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message
news:gfv041lg1oo61prn9bf2hslfrcu9pce251@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:06:15 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
>>problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't know
>>or
>>care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that detail is
>>taken
>>care of by the operating system.
>>
>>If your program is bypassing Windows and accessing the disk directly then
>>Windows' caching will be an issue.
>>
> I'm not bypassing Windows. It uses standard DOS calls.
>
>>Why not post the segment of code in which you actually invoke the file
>>copy
>>operation or the file compare operation? That way someone can see if
>>there's a different way of doing it that can avoid the problem.
>
> Thanks, but the program is not open source. There are also 5,000 lines
> of code in the program. It would be difficult to pick out what somebody
> might
> need to come up with an answer. Besides, I'm not looking for a programming
> answer, just a way to quickly turn off and on the caching without booting
> the system over and over.
>
> Jack
>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:00:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 11:00:30 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
wrote:

>There are no DOS calls that can disable Windows file caching. If you can
>establish a connection to Windows you may be able to create a system message
>that instructs Windows to flush the cache (I doubt that you need to turn it
>off). Any good reference on DOS programming under Windows should have a
>chapter on how to do that.
>
>However, a cache problem would be revealed as unexpected end of file
>problems or in compare failures when you know the data is OK. This doesn't
>sound like your problem.
>
>If you aren't prepared to share fragments of your code or information about
>your program structure then I doubt that anyone can help.
===============

O.K., thanks.

Jack
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 2:50:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

J. Yazel wrote :
}On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:00:05 +0000 (UTC), hashi <me@privacy.net> wrote:
}>
}>I don't think you want to turn off the swap file, you want to turn off
}>the disk cache. That, i think, can be done via a registry setting that
}>I don't know offhand.

} Now I can start over by learning about the disk cache. I don't know
}how I ignored that. Probably because I don't program the O/S, I guess.

I, too, am a 'compare nut', and would greatly appreciate it if you'd
share any solutions that you may come up with (I also do DOS .asm, but
not Windows (per se)). An email response may be preferred, (see my .sig)
but is not required. I'm especially looking for a way to clear the
floppy read-cache (for obvious reasons).

In the meantime, I've found that SCANDSKW will clear the read-cache.
Hopefully, this .BAT example can be of help, if you're able to split the
copy and compare functions:

@echo off
MyCopy
%windir%\command\start.exe /w %windir%\scandskw.exe c: /n /silent
MyCompare

Ken

--
<<< Remove the '4' to reply via email >>>
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:35:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It's not clear whether the compare is being done with DOS utilities or not.
OP has indicated the program uses 'standard DOS calls'. The possibility of
DOS utilities was my guess at how the program could possibly be gone by the
time the error was returned.

The fact that your FC completed successfully when the files are accessed
entirely from cache demonstrates what I am saying - that if the OS
facilities are used then whether the file is in cache or on disk makes no
difference - the OS treats the file the same and returns the correct data
from the file whatever it's location. That's why we use the OS to do this
sort of work for us. If OP is bypassing DOS and going direct to disk, the
cache becomes relevant, but he's indicated he isn't doing that.

That doesn't mean, of course, that his program operates properly, as your
second test shows. That's why I wanted to see just how this program worked,
and I am suspicious that it has exactly the problem you have identified. But
his problem is not misreporting of a valid copy when it isn't. His problem
is that the result of the compare operation is not being collected correctly
by the program. In that context he can consider the cache and the swap file
in the same terms.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9621DE0369D62776852d3f2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
> news:ugyRTcsLFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>
>> Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if
>> the files are being accessed properly.
>
> If I may ask, why can you ignore the disk cache when you're trying to
> perform read-after-write verify?
>
> consider the following...
>
> C:\>dir out.bin
> OUT BIN 1,457,000 03-22-05 9:04p out.bin
>
> C:\>copy out.bin a:\
> 1 file(s) copied
>
> C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
> Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
> FC: no differences encountered
>
> (System Monitor shows the fc operation was entirely cache hits, there was
> no floppy disk access...after some other disk access to flush the disk
> cache...)
>
> C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
> Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
>
> Read fault error reading drive A
> Abort, Retry, Fail?a
>
> Seems pretty clear that you can't ignore the cache when you want to
> confirm
> that the written data is valid.
March 23, 2005 6:35:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"If OP is bypassing DOS and going direct to disk, the cache becomes relevant,
but he's indicated he isn't doing that." -- From Jeff Richards, MVP

So, if the user goes directly to disk then like you say Jeff ". . . the
cache becomes relevant. . . ." I hope the user makes this adjustment and
posts back about how the procedure is going. This is really fascinating
stuff to an intermediate user who is learning a lot each day about PC's and
stuff to bolster Chris Quirkes, MVP's argument about a "True Maintenance
Operating System" in Windows XP Professional and all the future operating
systems. This user sees a "Clear And Present Danger" to computer security if
Microsoft fails to address the false emulation of DOS that is used in a
legacy mode in New Technology code that shows a "Clear And Present Danger" to
all computer networks currently operating in XP PRO. and this is a reason
this user dual boots with 98SE and XPPRO in a customized boot.ini with a
customized registry on 2 seperate and hidden hard drives fully updated --
fully backed up and ready to have a powerful offensive firewall and work with
the federal, state and local governments to decrease the presence of DOS
(Denial Of Service) protocals that have caused the Internet to descend into a
State Of Chaos. Anyway, I am not here to Hijack this post so on with the
above discussion and I just wanted to express the dangerous computer
environment that the NT source code which parts of it have been leaked over
the Internet represents to all computer users. The user looks forward to IE
7 in 98SE as well as XPPRO. Have a nice day!

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:o pvb9G2LFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: It's not clear whether the compare is being done with DOS utilities or not.
: OP has indicated the program uses 'standard DOS calls'. The possibility of
: DOS utilities was my guess at how the program could possibly be gone by the
: time the error was returned.
:
: The fact that your FC completed successfully when the files are accessed
: entirely from cache demonstrates what I am saying - that if the OS
: facilities are used then whether the file is in cache or on disk makes no
: difference - the OS treats the file the same and returns the correct data
: from the file whatever it's location. That's why we use the OS to do this
: sort of work for us. If OP is bypassing DOS and going direct to disk, the
: cache becomes relevant, but he's indicated he isn't doing that.
:
: That doesn't mean, of course, that his program operates properly, as your
: second test shows. That's why I wanted to see just how this program worked,
: and I am suspicious that it has exactly the problem you have identified.
But
: his problem is not misreporting of a valid copy when it isn't. His problem
: is that the result of the compare operation is not being collected
correctly
: by the program. In that context he can consider the cache and the swap
file
: in the same terms.
: --
: Jeff Richards
: MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: "hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
: news:Xns9621DE0369D62776852d3f2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
: > "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
: > news:ugyRTcsLFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
: >
: >> Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if
: >> the files are being accessed properly.
: >
: > If I may ask, why can you ignore the disk cache when you're trying to
: > perform read-after-write verify?
: >
: > consider the following...
: >
: > C:\>dir out.bin
: > OUT BIN 1,457,000 03-22-05 9:04p out.bin
: >
: > C:\>copy out.bin a:\
: > 1 file(s) copied
: >
: > C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
: > Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
: > FC: no differences encountered
: >
: > (System Monitor shows the fc operation was entirely cache hits, there was
: > no floppy disk access...after some other disk access to flush the disk
: > cache...)
: >
: > C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
: > Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
: >
: > Read fault error reading drive A
: > Abort, Retry, Fail?a
: >
: > Seems pretty clear that you can't ignore the cache when you want to
: > confirm
: > that the written data is valid.
:
:
Anonymous
March 23, 2005 6:35:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
news:o pvb9G2LFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> It's not clear whether the compare is being done with DOS utilities or
> not. OP has indicated the program uses 'standard DOS calls'. The
> possibility of DOS utilities was my guess at how the program could
> possibly be gone by the time the error was returned.

But in my example, no error is returned. The dos utilities are using
standard DOS calls, but the same results occur with the winAPI. With
explorer, the file can be copied to this floppy and immediately copied off
the floppy, but produces a "system cannot read from the specified device"
once the cache has expired. Neither gets read errors because cached data
would not produce a read error.

> The fact that your FC completed successfully when the files are
> accessed entirely from cache demonstrates what I am saying - that if
> the OS facilities are used then whether the file is in cache or on
> disk makes no difference - the OS treats the file the same and returns
> the correct data from the file whatever it's location. That's why we
> use the OS to do this sort of work for us. If OP is bypassing DOS and
> going direct to disk, the cache becomes relevant, but he's indicated
> he isn't doing that.

How can this be right? How did the cache make no difference when the read
was successful when the data was still in the cache but unsuccessful after
the cached data expired and the system had to read the disk? As well, I'm
not bypassing DOS or Windows, but the cache is certainly relevent.

> That doesn't mean, of course, that his program operates properly, as
> your second test shows. That's why I wanted to see just how this
> program worked, and I am suspicious that it has exactly the problem
> you have identified. But his problem is not misreporting of a valid
> copy when it isn't. His problem is that the result of the compare
> operation is not being collected correctly by the program. In that
> context he can consider the cache and the swap file in the same terms.

Don't the standard dos I/O functions block execution? If his program is
using them, it would be unlikely that it is able to proceed without getting
the results of those operations. It would be nonsensical to compare data
and not look at the results. However, if the program is receiving cached
data, the reads and compares would be successful operations just as my
first FC was successful. This would explain why his program is done or
processing other files without detecting the corruption in the past files
he's processed.
March 23, 2005 6:35:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

.. . . (my bad -- sorry) in the New Technology source code <NT 4, 2000, XP
PRO and XP HOME>

"Dan" <spamyou@user.nec> wrote in message
news:o 5psdi6LFHA.3420@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
:
: "If OP is bypassing DOS and going direct to disk, the cache becomes
relevant,
: but he's indicated he isn't doing that." -- From Jeff Richards, MVP
:
: So, if the user goes directly to disk then like you say Jeff ". . . the
: cache becomes relevant. . . ." I hope the user makes this adjustment and
: posts back about how the procedure is going. This is really fascinating
: stuff to an intermediate user who is learning a lot each day about PC's and
: stuff to bolster Chris Quirkes, MVP's argument about a "True Maintenance
: Operating System" in Windows XP Professional and all the future operating
: systems. This user sees a "Clear And Present Danger" to computer security
if
: Microsoft fails to address the false emulation of DOS that is used in a
: legacy mode in New Technology code that shows a "Clear And Present Danger"
to
: all computer networks currently operating in XP PRO. and this is a reason
: this user dual boots with 98SE and XPPRO in a customized boot.ini with a
: customized registry on 2 seperate and hidden hard drives fully updated --
: fully backed up and ready to have a powerful offensive firewall and work
with
: the federal, state and local governments to decrease the presence of DOS
: (Denial Of Service) protocals that have caused the Internet to descend into
a
: State Of Chaos. Anyway, I am not here to Hijack this post so on with the
: above discussion and I just wanted to express the dangerous computer
: environment that the NT source code which parts of it have been leaked over
: the Internet represents to all computer users. The user looks forward to
IE
: 7 in 98SE as well as XPPRO. Have a nice day!
:
: "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
: news:o pvb9G2LFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: : It's not clear whether the compare is being done with DOS utilities or
not.
: : OP has indicated the program uses 'standard DOS calls'. The possibility
of
: : DOS utilities was my guess at how the program could possibly be gone by
the
: : time the error was returned.
: :
: : The fact that your FC completed successfully when the files are accessed
: : entirely from cache demonstrates what I am saying - that if the OS
: : facilities are used then whether the file is in cache or on disk makes no
: : difference - the OS treats the file the same and returns the correct data
: : from the file whatever it's location. That's why we use the OS to do
this
: : sort of work for us. If OP is bypassing DOS and going direct to disk,
the
: : cache becomes relevant, but he's indicated he isn't doing that.
: :
: : That doesn't mean, of course, that his program operates properly, as your
: : second test shows. That's why I wanted to see just how this program
worked,
: : and I am suspicious that it has exactly the problem you have identified.
: But
: : his problem is not misreporting of a valid copy when it isn't. His
problem
: : is that the result of the compare operation is not being collected
: correctly
: : by the program. In that context he can consider the cache and the swap
: file
: : in the same terms.
: : --
: : Jeff Richards
: : MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
: : "hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
: : news:Xns9621DE0369D62776852d3f2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
: : > "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in
: : > news:ugyRTcsLFHA.244@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
: : >
: : >> Both the swap file and the cache aren't involved and can be ignored if
: : >> the files are being accessed properly.
: : >
: : > If I may ask, why can you ignore the disk cache when you're trying to
: : > perform read-after-write verify?
: : >
: : > consider the following...
: : >
: : > C:\>dir out.bin
: : > OUT BIN 1,457,000 03-22-05 9:04p out.bin
: : >
: : > C:\>copy out.bin a:\
: : > 1 file(s) copied
: : >
: : > C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
: : > Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
: : > FC: no differences encountered
: : >
: : > (System Monitor shows the fc operation was entirely cache hits, there
was
: : > no floppy disk access...after some other disk access to flush the disk
: : > cache...)
: : >
: : > C:\>fc /b out.bin a:\out.bin
: : > Comparing files out.bin and a:\out.bin
: : >
: : > Read fault error reading drive A
: : > Abort, Retry, Fail?a
: : >
: : > Seems pretty clear that you can't ignore the cache when you want to
: : > confirm
: : > that the written data is valid.
: :
: :
:
:
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 2:35:29 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"J. Yazel" <jyazel@ds.net> wrote in message news:gfv041lg1oo61prn9bf2hslfrcu9pce251@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:06:15 +1100, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>The disk cache is essentially the same as the swap file as far as your
>>problem is concerned - if the program is written properly it doesn't know or
>>care whether Windows is caching the files or not. All that detail is taken
>>care of by the operating system.
>>
>>If your program is bypassing Windows and accessing the disk directly then
>>Windows' caching will be an issue.
>>
> I'm not bypassing Windows. It uses standard DOS calls.

This has really nothing to do with the Windows cache (afaik), since the
virtual OS is unaware of the host.

*Assuming that the DOS VM implements its own "virtual cache" for "DOS",
flushing the DOS cache should then cause the VM to communicate this to
Windows. You may need to flush the file to disk using the DOS "Flush"
function before attempting the verify operation. Or you can use the DOS
service, "Extended Open File", and direct it to auto-commit on all writes.

You probably have Ralf Brown's interrupt list- Look for int 21h-
services 6ch and 68h. On 6ch, set bit-6 of the bh register.
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:28:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96225DE122420776852d3f2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
> snip <
> However, if the program is receiving cached
> data, the reads and compares would be successful operations just as my
> first FC was successful. This would explain why his program is done or
> processing other files without detecting the corruption in the past files
> he's processed.

"is done [or] processing other files without detecting the corruption in the
past files he's processed" is the key. If this is what's happening, then
the cache is clearly the culprit, and your description of the problem is
quite correct. I take it to mean that the program gets a success code from
the operation, and something subsequent (such as a second attempt to read
the file) then fails. Your test demonstrates how this can happen

However, his description was "the disk writes and reads actually work
against the swap file almost the whole time. The program is almost finished
when the "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during
the "real" I/O, the program can't handle it." I take this to mean that the
program is terminating before it is determining whether the operation
completed properly or not, which indicates bad programming or bad program
structure, and fiddling with either swap or cache won't help. But if it
means that the program is seeing and handling a result message (eg, 'OK'),
but a failure is occurring subsequently in a different operation, then your
demonstration matches the problem exactly, and the cache is certainly
relevant..
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
Anonymous
March 24, 2005 10:28:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:uvPn2tEMFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "hashi" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Xns96225DE122420776852d3f2@news.comcast.giganews.com...
>> snip <
>> However, if the program is receiving cached
>> data, the reads and compares would be successful operations just as my
>> first FC was successful. This would explain why his program is done or
>> processing other files without detecting the corruption in the past files
>> he's processed.
>
> "is done [or] processing other files without detecting the corruption in the past files he's processed" is the key. If this is
> what's happening, then the cache is clearly the culprit, and your description of the problem is quite correct. I take it to mean
> that the program gets a success code from the operation, and something subsequent (such as a second attempt to read the file) then
> fails. Your test demonstrates how this can happen
>
> However, his description was "the disk writes and reads actually work against the swap file almost the whole time. The program is
> almost finished when the "real" disk I/O gets going. Therefore, if any error occurs during the "real" I/O, the program can't
> handle it." I take this to mean that the program is terminating before it is determining whether the operation completed properly
> or not, which indicates bad programming or bad program structure, and fiddling with either swap or cache won't help. But if it
> means that the program is seeing and handling a result message (eg, 'OK'), but a failure is occurring subsequently in a different
> operation, then your demonstration matches the problem exactly, and the cache is certainly relevant..

The DOS file services do set an error or success (carry) flag and an
error code on return. Assuming he is using the newer file handle services
(as opposed to FCBs), extended error information can then be obtained by
throwing an int21h-59h.

WRITE TO FILE OR DEVICE
http://www.ctyme.com/intr/rb-2791.htm

GET EXTENDED ERROR INFORMATION
http://www.ctyme.com/intr/rb-3012.htm

There really is no way to continue program flow until the OS/interrupt
returns this information.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:39:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Unfortunately, all we know is "standard DOS calls". Until OP chooses to
provide a bit more detail, it's speculation.

BTW, I haven't tried it but I'm not sure that a DOS flush file (int 21h,
function 68h or 6ch) will do anything other than commit the file to the VM -
Windows might or might not take notice of it for flushing its own buffers.
Or possibly, to get Windows to flush the data might require the program to
be running with the disk locked.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"Bill Blanton" <bblanton@REMOVEmagicnet.net> wrote in message
news:eHfepiHMFHA.3548@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
> snip <
>
> The DOS file services do set an error or success (carry) flag and an
> error code on return. Assuming he is using the newer file handle services
> (as opposed to FCBs), extended error information can then be obtained by
> throwing an int21h-59h.
>
> WRITE TO FILE OR DEVICE
> http://www.ctyme.com/intr/rb-2791.htm
>
> GET EXTENDED ERROR INFORMATION
> http://www.ctyme.com/intr/rb-3012.htm
>
> There really is no way to continue program flow until the OS/interrupt
> returns this information.
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:39:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:e6qx6qMMFHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Unfortunately, all we know is "standard DOS calls". Until OP chooses to provide a bit more detail, it's speculation.

I agree, but all the DOS file services do return a "success" or fail"
flag/error code, including the absolute disk read/write functions.
However..


> BTW, I haven't tried it but I'm not sure that a DOS flush file (int 21h, function 68h or 6ch) will do anything other than commit
> the file to the VM - Windows might or might not take notice of it for flushing its own buffers.

... that's probably the key, and I don't know either. I was speculating on
what might be, but it would be easy to test. (For the OP, especially, since
the problem code is already in place)

> Or possibly, to get Windows to flush the data might require the program to be running with the disk locked.

Does Windows honor a locked disk from a "VM/DOS" program, or would that be
a lock only at the "virtual machine" level? If the former, I would think a
flush/commit should be honored at the Windows level also. But that's just
more speculation.

It is an interesting question of how the VM interacts with the OS/cache
manager regardless..
!