Networking Question - Hardware & Devices Discussion Boards

I don't know if I agree... some of the most stable code exists in free linux distributions. I wouldn't say that Microsoft servers are better than Linux ones... as a matter of fact, look at the numbers, I'm sure there's a lot more servers running Linux than there is servers running MS Server.

Albert Holguin wrote:
as a matter of fact, look at the numbers, I'm sure there's a lot more servers running Linux than there is servers running MS Server.

Aw, I deserved that one - and I'll also stop arguing right away, before we accidentally create an entire offtopic religious thread Big Grin | :-D

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

Good idea. After all, everyone knows you have to get past the pearly Gates to enter Heaven. But no one knows what's in the EULA, or what happens if you don't pay your Millennial License Renewal Fee. Suspicious | :suss:

Will Rogers never met me.

wow thankyou very much guys, i saw Home Premium 64 bit max memory 16GB, so it means that if i use 16GB RAM, which one will my system show?

-> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (5.87 GB useable)

or

-> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (15.87 GB useable)

vkstarry wrote:
-> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (15.87 GB useable)

This will be the closer one... although there's some degree of uncertainty as to the actual number since whatever allocated the memory in the first place may be allocating based on some algorithm (let's say a percentage of the total physical memory, or maybe a percentage up to a certain amount, or whatever).

Although remember what I said about the motherboard usually being the limiter nowadays, before you run out and get more RAM, make sure your motherboard will support it.

SQL

Im not an expert on it but as i have read and as i have experienced from other of my friends also.Yes! its normal.Maybe you have to visit this site here for more information about your question to be satisfied:

<a href="http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview">http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview</a>[<a href="http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]

I am playing with a networking setup on a Windows XP computer. It is setup like this:

1. The computer has an Ethernet NIC (PCI) with RJ45 (100Mbps) port.

2. The computer also has a USB modem from VirginMobile plugged in to get access through the 3G network to the Internet. (This part works fine.)

3. From Control Panel | Network Connections, I use the properties of the connection for the VirginMobile to set it to "Allow other network users to connect through this computer's Internet connection." The Home networking connection is set to the Ethernet NIC. (This is done from the "Advanced" tab.)

4. I connected the Ethernet NIC to a Wifi router's WAN port using an Ethernet cable. The Wifi router had been setup to work properly.

5. I fired up an Android tablet to connect to the hotspot offered by the Wifi router. The connection was nice and strong.

After all these, I expect to be able to get access to the web from the Android tablet. It did not work. To try to find what the problem was, I connected a laptop computer to the Wifi router using a physical connection (Ethernet cable). The computer also connected to the router with no problem. DHCP worked fine and it obtained the IP addresses. But Internet is not available. Somehow the above shared network did not work.

On the XP computer, the command ipconfig/all showed correctly assigned IP addresses (I believe.)

By the way, a different setup worked briefly, but quit working after a few days. The setting is like this: On the XP machine another PCI card (Wireless G) was installed. This card was setup to be in "AP" mode, and again the VirginMobile USB modem connection was set to be sharing Internet connection. The Android tablet could connect to the AP and then go to the Internet. However, after a few days, the tablet could not connect to the AP any more. It got stuck at the point saying "Obtaining IP addresses..."

What was wrong with my setups? Anybody had done similar things?

Wow, your setup is a bit of a cluster f***... I'm having a hard time understanding where this is breaking down since you have so many steps. To try to break down where you don't have internet access, try a few things:
0. Check to make sure you have an IP address.
1. Make sure your gateway is configured properly (will depend on your configuration).
2. Make sure you have name-resolution.

Usually you can use ipconfig/ping/tracert to figure out where your connection breaks down. If you don't have name resolution, you may have to explicitly state who your name server is.

From your Android > disconnect and reconnect it to the hotspot.
This is quite the cluster whooey...

So you can access the internet from everything but the tablet? Go into device manager and make sure the Wireless NIC properties are not set to power off. Set it to CAM if possible, which is constant awake mode.

Check the power settings in control panel as well, as some power plans will kill power.

Have you tried restarting everything? Another thing to try is IPCONFIG /RELEASE & IPCONFIG /RENEW on your XP machine to renew it's IP address.

Something worth reading, albeit it's invincible!

Sounds like you are running two DHCP servers on the same segment.

When you switched on ICS on the XP machine, you effectively created a DHCP server.

The WiFi hotspot probably has its own DHCP server. The Android Dead | X|

tablet is trying to get an IP address. It gets it from the WiFi router.

For it to work with the ICS it has to get an IP from the ICS DHCP server, not the WiFi hotspot, otherwise the traffic from the tablet will never reach the ICS NAT gateway (different IP class and subnets).

Lots of options to get it working but simplest would probably be to "steal" an IP from the ICS server and set the tablet to use a static IP set to the stolen one and having a default gateway of the ICS server (XP box). The DNS would also have to be set to the ICS server.

During system startup, you can make the case that the speed-limiting factor is the read speed of the boot drive.

However, what do you think is the main bottleneck when you're using the machine?

Choices could include:

The memory

The drive that contains the swap file

The boot drive

The data drive

The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.

[trying to reply to a rather volatile question]

Now that would depend very much on what you are doing with your system, don't you think?
if you're browsing the web, what is your internet connection?
if you're building software, where is your source code (network drive? source control system?)
etc.

Smile | :)

Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum

Now that would depend very much on what you are doing with your system, don't you think?

For example – I develop using ancient VC 6.0 and have 1.5GB of memory. If I put my code on USB drive it visibly slows down compilation time ( 5 MB "big" application) in comparison when the code is on the internal IDE.
But the VC never uses more than 300 MB during compilation.
When I had a dual core CPU the compilation time was about the same on faster CPU. VC 6.0 did not care about dual CPU!

As Lut said - it depends.
Using bigger hammer does not necessary speed things up when you are building a bird house.
Vaclav

Vaclav_Sal wrote:
Using bigger hammer does not necessary speed things up when you are building a bird house.

I'll have to remember that one! Smile | :)

The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.

I just got a bigger bird... Poke tongue | ;-P

Aside from the boot phase, when the boot drive dominates, all of the other factors predominate. For a small application, the data drive will be most important; for a large one, the interaction between the memory and the swap file drive will determine performance. If the application is data-intensive, the data drive will also play an important role. Given the information provided, the only answer that comes to mind is, "it depends..."

Will Rogers never met me.

If my motherboard supports SATA 3 GB's, and I set up a pair of drives in a RAID 0 (striping) configuration, does that make the effective data transfer speed faster than SATA 3GB, or is it always limited to 3GB's?

The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.

I would rephrase the question - if I have a SATA disk capable of sending data at the rate of 10 GB per second what would be the effective data rate on my 3 GB/s motherboard?
The overall data rate of a transmission path is controlled / limited by the slowest device in the path.
You have asked an interesting question, I hope you realize that one of the advantages of striping the disks is to increase the storage capacity.
Vaclav

Depends on the RAID controller.

If your RAID controller hooks up to one 3Gb port on the MB, you will be limited to 3Gb. If it is a PCIE card, depending on the number of PCIE lanes it uses, it might go over 3Gb. So be carefull of RAID cards that use only 1 lane.

If you use software RAID (striping over volumes using Windows disk manager) you will get >3Gb.

All of this is obviously based on the assumption that the drive runs a flat rate of 3Gb. The bottleneck is still the drive, not the interface (unless you can afford those already RAID configured SSDs)

Hope that answers your question.

Using that speed-demon freeware file-searcher, Agent Ransack, I determined that there are over 25,000 files, with a total size of over 1 gigabyte on my machine whose names contain ... at some position in the file name ... the letters "amd64."

I find myself wondering if these files are in any way essential to this system.

I suppose one way to find out is to delete them all, after backing up the system, and then see if I could re-boot Smile | :)

... but that seems a bit risky.

Any thoughts about what all these files are, and are they, indeed, related to a possible Win install on AMD hardware and CPU ?

thanks, Bill

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

modified 3-Jan-12 19:02pm.

I only found 27 on my machine......... Confused | :confused:

I expected to see more.

Dave
Find Me On: Web|Facebook|Twitter|LinkedIn

Folding Stats: Team CodeProject

Hi Dave, Thanks for your response.

In C:\Windows\winsxs on my machine: are 8,274 folders whose names begin with "amd64_"

Their total contents are 21,013 files totaling 5.81 gigabytes on disk.

In spite of being logged in as Admin on a one-account Win 7 64x machine, I cannot move these folders: I either get a message I need permission from "System" or "TrustedInstaller."

And, yes, I tried opening the "sxs" folder using 'Run command which normally gives you admin rights, but same results. Similarly context clicking ... when all these folders are selected ... shows they are not locked, and not read-only.

But, context-clicking on various single folders in this group, may show they are "read-only."

Time for some Googling.

best, Bill

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Well, looks like another case where I should have Googled first, and then posted a question here:

See the reply by "sminlal" on this thread on Tom's Hardware forum[^]:

Quote:
The "amd64" files are required for a 64-bit system. They have the initials "AMD" in them because the 64-bit extension of the Intel x86 architecture was actually created by AMD, and the first 64-bit x86-compatible processors were AMD processors. So when Microsoft first started adapting 64-bit Windows they were designing it for AMD processors.

Intel attempted to create a new RISC-based architecture called Itanium, but it failed to take hold in the marketplace. They were forced to belatedly came out with their own version of AMD's 64-bit design in order to stay in the market, and that's what everyone is now using.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Is it me or MS is never going to fix the XP problem not recognizing ALL USB devices attached to the box?
I have read somewhere that it is KNOWN issue due to boot/ startup process of XP.
I have NEVER had this problem with good ol' NT.
Happy New Year
Vaclav