George,

SNIP
>>>I think we're done here.
>>
>>No we're not at all done, George.
>>
>>You accused me of making UNprovoked attacks on people. You said that you could prove this in your statement "Word to wise: Don't go here, for I'll be happy to demonstrate via your own posts.)".
>>Anyone reading that has to believe that it's true, especially coming from our "scientist" and our champion of heartwarming "open letters".
>
>Jim, you want me to demonstrate? Then all you have to do is go back to your original post to me on this thread. You mis-characterize both my motivation and character. That, both directly and indirectly is an unprovoked and unwarrented attack. I spent considerable time writing the original post. One of the things I cerrtainly did not want to do was offend anyone, including you. You took offense because you chose to do so. =

Huh? The absolute most that I see in my initial reply to you that might in any way "characterise" ANYTHING is that I referred to your original as an "epistle". Where does that trample you "motivation and character"??? The fact that YOU made an invalid assumption about "self-aggrandizement" is not at all my problem!
I did say "...bask in the glory...". Is it not so that several wrote accolades regarding the epistle???? Is that 'glory'?


>
>>Now it's down to one "incident". One where you (proudly proclaim) "know more of my actions afterwards than I might think". Well I have no problem with you 'exposing' anything you like about the "incident". Others may, but I don't, so as far as I'm concerned, go right ahead.
>
>OK, after that post, you demand that Ed be expelled from the UT. Deny it, and you are a liar.

Firstly, you haven't identified "that post" to which you allude. Most scientific, George, especially when I asked you to do so! Now you've gone and made me do the dirty work! More on this a little further down...

>
>>So either put it all up here for all the world to see or retract the entire statement. Do it by your own "rules", with the simple exception: You say "...or mentioned you specifically by would be fair game" and that cannot work, because EdR's main modus operandi was to insult (me) in other threads directed to other people, not mentioning my name but rather coining a phrase like 'hardware expert' and using that to refer to me. So if your "incident" includes EdR then you had better take that into account. Don't waste my time by making me have to do so after the fact. Do a nice clean scientific job of it on the first go around, will you?
>
>So you choose when and where someone can make a statement? You are the final arbibtor of what's allowable and what's not. I don't think so. The one thing that has and continues to guide me is a quote from Voltaire:
>
>I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

What the he** are you talking about here, George? Venom obstructing your thinking again?
>
>Ed, who has personally evaluated both hardware and software for computer magazines isn't allowed to express his opinions if they run contrary to your's? If I express an opinion that you don't agree with, is that out-of-bounds also?

What a crock, George! Really! You honestly feel that is an accurate statement? Funny how people "remember" things the wy they want to! You have his totally backwards, firstly. Secondly, your esteemed friend EdR has made at least 3 INCORRECT and INACCURATE technical conclusions as regards only my posts. I haven't counted as regards others'.
For the clarity and edification of everyone who has followed your mistruths and off-topic side-trips through this whole thread you will find AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MESSAGE a complete and accurate summary of "the post" that started me on my journey to have EdR dealt with.


>
>Now to clean things up, Ed wasn't even aware of your presence on "that" thread. I know from his own words that you were on his "filter". You presume too much. Yet you took it upon yourself to unleash profanity towards him, and then demarded that he be expelled from here.
>

More incorrect and untruths, George! I can, if you want, provide thread/message numbers where your friend EdR complains vehemently about the poor design of the TWIT FILTER because it does not completely block any and all messages by his TWITees. He does this more than once, over a period of time INCLUDING the period of the thread that I have ACCURATELY summarized below.
Now, please show me where I unleashed profanities against EdR! SHOW THEM TO THE WORLD, GEORGE! Your claim is WRONG regarding my uttering profanities, especially to any such extent as EdR utters insults and profanities.
YES, I solicited UT management to either get EdR to eliminate his insulting behaviour or EXPEL HIM. Immediately below I extract just a very small portion of his insults/profanities to various people here over the same period in question:
------------------- START OF INSULT EXTRACTS ----------------------------
NOTE: On trying to send this, UT advised that there were obscenities and forced revisions. I have XXed as needed:

-----Thread #357266 Message #357277
"OTOH, if their existance offends your sense of advisable allocation of protoplasmic material, their ethics are abhorrant, their messages a major source of disinformation, or that they even draw a breath is offensive to you...".
"...sysop to do something about that foul-mouthed, misanthropic excuse for a pile of parrot dropXings."
"It's a free-fire zone, I operate in weapons-free status and will engage targets at range with the pyrotechnic appropriate to the situation and target..."
-----Thread #359998 Message #360295 2000/04/17
"Oh well, bulXshiXometer is pegged to the wall on the right, all the way to the stop. I take it you're eminently qualified to distinguish the qualities that go into differentiating between good and bad exams based on your college curriculum in CS. Enjoy your stay in Wonderland, Alice...".
"Y'know, I'll bet you'd do very well on the third-grade reading competence exam, too!".
-----Thread #359998 Message #360324 2000/04/17
"Enjoy Wonderland, Alice.".
-----Thread #359998 Message #360348 2000/04/17
"Yes, oh Master VFP Programmer. It's right here in my OED somewhere between "clue" and "coronary embolism".".
"Enjoy Wonderland, Alice.".
-----Thread #359998 Message #360385 2000/04/17
"Do you need the number to Rent-A-Clue in your area? ".
"Mr Catepillar, your hookah awaits...".
-----Thread #359998 Message #360810 - 2000/04/18
"I do. Rent a clue.".
-----Thread #359998 Message #361948 2000/04/20
"Could it be that I might have better things to do with my time than take exams that have no value other than making people who couldn't pass the MCP feel good about themselves?".
-----Thread #367063 Message #368042 - 2000/05/10
"BFD if he has to rely on out-of-date ref materials. ".
"Hey, if you go back in time far enough, you'll find plenty of references that state categorically that the world is flat, and everything is made from admixtures of 4 basic elements - earth, air, fire and water. PS - you'd probably be condemned as a heretic if you insisted that you could ride on a flying machine.
The good old days - when we had a better appreciation for the proper use of human sacrifices...".
"Poor demented individual doesn't understand ...".
"I'd suggest a virtual Valium for the file server to reduce its stress, and a heavy dosage of clue-enriched education ...".
-----Thread #368006 Message #368234 2000/05/10
"Well, at least you're here to give correct technical descriptions of the problem in a printable format that we can give to said moron and watch his demeanor change rapidly.".
"Check for a lower limb hanging from the guru's snout - his foot is well down his throat and may actually have reappeared from a posterior position.".
"I'd suggest checking for little pieces of blotter paper or funny cigarettes, because he's definitely out there with Alice, the Catepillar and the rest of characters from "Behind the Looking Glass".".
-----.ftp file size not affected by PACK on .dbf file? Thread #370085 Message #370170 - 2000/05/16
"I'm sorry, I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion. Mr. Nelson and I have an ongoing and long-standing argument, and I have no intention of either continuing this, or engaging him in further discussion. I disagree with the statement that he made. I'll not continue this discussion further as long as UT's filtering capability does not enable me to block messages from a source that I consider to be unpleasant and generally inaccurate. I'm certain that other knowledgable people here can provide sufficient explanation of any issues that may have arisen as a result of his interpretation of the internal behavior of the VFP PACK operation.".
-----Thread #370776 Message #371627 - 2000/05/21
"The BBOFT has no place in this discussion. ".
"I don't care a hoot what some-semi-mythical religious figure say in a work of fiction;".
"I'm all in favor of nailing them up at Easter - just remember the carpenter's last words to your Messiah:
Please cross you legs - I only have one nail left.".
-----Thread #370776 Message #371782 - 2000/05/22
"What? Me have a clue about what goes on under the hood? Couldn't be - there's a whole crew who don't think I even know the difference between preemptive and cooperative multitasking...and I wouldn't want to disappoint them with a dose of reality. Not worth the effort to edumacate them about such things. They're happy as clams now with their perceptions of the way the world works and I seem to get bogged down in basic theory, and haven't their academic credentials to hide behind.".
-----Thread #370776 Message #372488 - 2000/05/23
"I have strong opinions, a healthy disrespect for a number of expert or wannabe expert types, and I'm less than genteel about it. ".
------------------ END EdR INSULT EXTRACTS ------------------------------

>>Who else but you is the "we" that says I have been irresponsibe in stating that the REINDEX/bloat "issue" is a bug???? I really didn't know you were a spokesman for the community.
>>And it is comical that if I had called the problem an "issue" then you would have been alright with that. Comical on two counts, actually:
>>1) you simply could have said so in your first reply on the thread;
>>2) your venom towards anything I say makes it impossible for you to read my stuff properly.
>
>1. I did. 2. If I've mis-read anything of your's and responded inappropriately, I did apologize.

More crap, George! You didn't even reply to me, you replied, with a poor attempt at sarcasm, to DavisF. You ridiculed my proposition that I had detected a bug, using stupid "reasoning" to attempt to do so.
Mis-read anything I've said... have you read anything properly??? Your venom prevents your doing so. Apologized?... once, when someone ELSE caught you jumping the gun. How scientific again, George!

>
>>As for my cluelessness, what the hell are you going on about???? It matters not how/when you "worked with Randy Brown", just that the vast majority of us do not. Period. Anyone who would send an unsolicited e-mail to Mr. Brown deserves a response along the lines of 'sorry, I don't do debugging by e-mail'.
>
>Did not John Koziol solicit bug reports to he and Mike Stewart? My statement was in that regard. Randy, may (I'm not 100% sure) contacted me about a post I made on the UT regarding the C0000005 errors. If he did not, then I took his words as being an invitation to submit such. In this particular incident, I was wrong and apologized to both Randy and the Fox team for wasting their time.

JohnK did, for himself, for sure. MikeS I don't think so. Are they RandyB??? Did it even matter HOW/WHAT/WHEN you "worked with Randy"? NO! That was in no way my point and that chip on your shoulder made you see otherwise yet again!

>
>>As I said earlier, George, I am far too tired of this whole thing to go to the bother of showing how your "logic" in this thread, as regards *my* statements and your retorts, do not answer my statements, confuse various issues, introduce unrelated fluff and generally are born of venom rather than good sense.
>
>You started this. In no way, shape, manner or form was my original post directed towards you. If I recall correctly, I told you this in my initial response. You, however, have chosen to be offended. There's nothing I can do about that.

Right, the same old trick EdR uses in the post(s) that I have reproduced below. You meant me and anyone who read the epistle and the diatribes you hurled regarding the REINDEXing bug KNOWS THIS!
Sure, you didn't name names. You knew full well you didn't have to!
By the way, you CONFIRMED this later in this thread, replying to someone that, indeed, the person they had in mindwas the person YOU had in mind too!
>
>>Show the world my UNprovoked attacks on people, George. And if you don't then have the decency to retract your accusation.
>
>I just did. I've also directly confronted you with your taking my statements out of context and blatantly mis-quoting me. Did you bother to apologize? No!

WRONG GEORGE!!! Read the summarized "post at thebottom! I went to a whole lot of work just so that you couldn't get away with it again!

>
>The bottom line here is that when you stop attacking me, I'll stop having to defend myself. The choice is your's.

I did NOT attack you. But you can't help but attack me. It's up to you to:
1) Stop the bull;
2) Stop attacking me.

Jim


ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THE POST THAT STARTED MY DISCONTENT WITH ED RAUH FOLLOS:
Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362278 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/21 at 12:58:41
We are looking at some batch processes involing large databases, including some individual files near the gig range. Mostly these jobs will be run in exclusive mode, using standalone stations.
I have been asked to spec these stations.
I was thinking of zeon chips, raid five, and 1 Gig of Ram with Perc 3 raid controller and 128 Meg of cache. The question is will this really gain a great deal? Will 1 Gig really give us a significant gain over 512 Meg or 256 Meg. Is raid going to buy us that much gain in I.O. In general can anyone suggest the best configuration for this kind of thing?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362283 by Brett Hobbs on 2000/04/21 at 13:08:16
**quoted removed**
When we have to load data here from the Army. I use a Pentium III 450 128MB Memory PC to process the files.
Statistics

3 Tables
frn 15,000 records 12 Indexes
lot 600,000 records a memo field and 20 Indexes including a PHdbase Index
comp 5,500,000 records 3 Indexes

The original tables are zapped, indexes dropped, and everything is recreated.
The File processing will take about 3.5 hours, which is plenty of time to accomplish this as a nightly process.
This biggest processing is the creation of the Phdbase Index on the memo field of the lot table (about 2.5 hours of the 3.5)
Total DBC and table sizes when finished is approx 1.7 GB
Just my 2 cents and my experience with large data files.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362293 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/21 at 13:41:02
**quoted removed**
That is helpful. But the question is would my "super" configuration run the same job in one hour? Or a half hour? Or 15 minutes? Or would it take the same 3.5 hours? The reason I am asking is that we have a LOT of these large jobs to run. Also even if we would gain from an improved machine, would we gain from one this improved? Is any of this sheer waste? For example will we seen NO detecable gain between 512 Meg and 1 gig? Or a few seconds. Some of the VFP 6.0 documentation suggests that VFP can take advantage of as much memory as we can give it. But is this really the case? Ditto raid 5 scsci disks are the kind of thing you use for SQL server. Will VFP benefit signifcantly with large files?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362295 by Brett Hobbs on 2000/04/21 at 13:45:43
**quoted removed**
FoxPro Advisor had articles from Mac Rubel dealing with VFP and memory (among several other factors) you might want to search their web site and see if you can find them. They could be helpful in making this type of decision.
Best I can do...Hope it helps.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362314 by Jim Nelson on 2000/04/21 at 15:02:51
Note that this responds to message #362293 2nd above
Hi Gar,

I have read Brett's replies. His sounds like a straightforward recreation job. Is that also the nature of the work you have to do?

You say standalone workstations, implying that networking is *not* at all a consideration. Is that correct, and would you also plan on running only 1 such job at a time on a workstation?
Some general comments on your "superstation" configuration:

I doubt that XEON is required or will buy you much at all (based strictly on reading, *not* on actually using one).
A job I had involving HUGE files and lots of processing (about 5 years ago) used a StorageWorks disk array and It seemed to be fantastic. No doubt they have gotten much better since then too. While it was configured for RAID5, I'm not so sure that was the best option. My *guess* would be that RAID0 would be best for strictly speed. But again, depending on the nature of the work this might also be overkill. Maybe some of the top level SCSI drives available are enough, especially if attention is paid to spreading key tables across different drives.
I believe that the more RAM the better, but this no doubt depends on how you can control its allocation for the OS, buffering and VFP.
Note - bolding above added here by me at this time.
Good luck with this
**quoted removed**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362364 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/21 at 16:54:51
Note that this responds to message #362314 above (mine)
Thanks so much for your help.
My is not a straight recreation job -- more a data cleaning job that involves reading the same stuff over and over again, and changing a substantial portion of it. The reason for the Zeon chip is that it is required to get maximum speed in passing data between disk and Ram if we really are going to take tadvantage of the all this Ram.

From what you are saying the Raid will buy us quite a lot, so we should definitely stick with it. This make sense: database == faster the disk the better.The reason we are doing 5 rather than 0, is that 5 buys us some extra reliablity, whereas 0 is LESS reliable than not having raid at all.
For the most part network suport is not an issue. The really big jobs will be done on a stand alone basis. We will be doing some manual error correction that involves accessing the data from a remote station -- but these will also involve getting very few records, making some changes at the client end and than passing it back. I suspect the speed on these is more affected by decent applicaton design than hardware. In the batch jobs, network stuff is (as you say) not an issue.

The question still remains -- is the RAM worth it? We can end up almost within hardware budget if we get the 512 Meg of RAM, and go about 50% over hardware budget if go to 1 Gig of Ram. But hardware cost is trivial compared to developer cost, and the cost of having to wait a long time for jobs to finish. So if the Gig will buy us something real, I have no problem fighting for it. That is the question. Will the Gig get us improved speed. The only thing I know on this is that Microsoft says the more RAM the better, and some people on this thread have added that RAM only does you good if your chip can access it directly. (Most modern chips and motherboards can.)

Any able to confirm the above? Or deny it? I checked at the Foxpro Advisor web site, but unfortunately most of the key articles are available only on the CD or the print adition and not at the site. I will have to check out some back issues in the library but meantime ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362408 by Al Doman on 2000/04/21 at 19:21:32 replying to GarL's above
**quoted removed**
Given the other hardware you've spec'd, I'm surprised the RAM cost is such a big issue. A local dealer quotes PC100 ECC SDRAM at C$410 for a 256MB piece... so $820 for 512MB, or about US$550. Assuming the MB/CPU properly support that much RAM, it won't be slower than not having it. Hey, why not try it and tell us the results? :-)
IAC it's going to be more important to optimize your VFP programs for peak speed.
I'd look a little more closely at Jim's point about networking. You need to ask yourself - you're going to be processing GB-sized files on this machine. How are you going to get them onto this machine? It can take a *long* time to push files of that size around.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362412 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/21 at 19:44:13 replying to AlD's above.
**quoted removed**
In terms of RAM costs, we have decided to (as you say) try it and see want happens. But our costs are signifcantly higher than you quoted because IS uses only name brand machines with manufacturers RAM.
>
>IAC it's going to be more important to optimize your VFP programs for peak speed.

Obviously -- but hardware is cheaper than developers time. So any thing we gain from hardware is well worth it. Our current software works with 100,000 record files on some pretty slow machines -- include 486's with 64 meg of Ram. So we hope that with great hardware it will well with million record files without a lot of tweaking. To the extent we need to tweak, we will.
>
>I'd look a little more closely at Jim's point about networking. You need to ask yourself - you're going to be processing GB-sized files on this machine. How are you going to get them onto this machine? It can take a *long* time to push files of that size around.

Our network is optimized fairly well now. We can copy a 1 gig file from machine to machine in about 15 minutes. Getting the files onto our network is a another matter. FTP is obviously not an option. Our client does have compression software and writeable CD Rom drives, so one possiblity is to have them compress the data and put it on CD Rom. (A gig file compressed will fit easily on a CD Rom drive. There is a lot of empty space in dbf files, and compression usually reduces them to about 20% of uncompressed size). Since our client is local, they should have no problem getting the CDs to us.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362547 by Al Doman on 2000/04/22 at 19:03:52 replying to GarL's above
**quoted removed**
You're talking about implementing RAID5 arrays, Xeon processor(s), etc. If 512MB RAM pushes you 50% over hardware budget, that implies you're being quoted multiple thousands of dollars for that extra RAM. Could you do us a favour and let us know who's quoting you that price (and what it was), so we know who to avoid when we want hardware?
"Name-brand" RAM is a crock - these days anyone in that business has one or more billion-dollar fabs, and total quality control is the only way to make them pay. What do you consider "name-brand"? Dell? Compaq? Neither of those has any fabs, they buy all their semiconductors from others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362713 by Ed Rauh on 2000/04/24 at 09:39:11 replying to AlD's above
>"Name-brand" RAM is a crock - these days anyone in that business has one or more billion-dollar fabs, and total quality control is the only way to make them pay. What do you consider "name-brand"? Dell? Compaq? Neither of those has any fabs, they buy all their semiconductors from others.
>
There is such a thing as name-brand memory - just not under these names. ;-)
There are RAM vendors who do their own fab and QC - Micron Electronics is one of them, and the best retail source for their product is Crucial Memories, a branch of the compnay that deals with the retail marketplace. Viking is one of the few non-fab vendors that does extensive QC of the product they assemble and sell, and I'd be willing to pay a slight premium for their product as well. A number of small integrators such as MIND Computing and PC Nut will spec an exact part and performance guarentee.
I'd expand on your advice - get the exact details of what 'name-brand' means in this context, and if all it means is that it came from the primary system assembly plant, I'd go for a real name-brand, performance spec'd part unless the memory that came from the OEM carried extensive addded warranties - a real consideration in some cases, where if you get a 24/7 contract and something breaks, the first thing a tech from their operation may do is to rip out anything that didn't come from the primary vendor.
**quoted removed**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362792 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/24 at 12:16:28 replying to AlD's above.
Just some 'discussion vis-a-vis brand hardware & on-site vendor support vs cheaper parts and own support staffer(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362796 by Gar Lipow on 2000/04/24 at 12:24:19 adding to his previous reply to AlD.
added to the 'discussion a defense of DELL based on words in prior reply (above) to AlD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362859 by Al Doman on 2000/04/24 at 14:54:50 replying to GarL's above.
Al appreciated the added clarification, and a tad more discussion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362877 by Ed Rauh on 2000/04/24 at 15:24:24 replying to AlD's above.
**quoted removed**
Dell is pretty good about their server configs; they use Xeons where appropriate, and also were using some of the Micron DSDRAM from Micron for at least one of their server lines as an alternative to using RAMBUS memory - I don't know if they continued with this when they started using the 840 chipsets. As noted, you really need the Slot2 processor to take advantage of >512MB, and that rules out a number of the 810/820 chipset implementations that ship now. Micron has their own Samurai chipset that offers significant advantages for workstation and server implementations, including up to 8 way processor implementation, a working 64bit/66MHz PCI bus, using the Adaptec 3 channel RAID card, and support for the double-speed SDRAM in conjunction with the PC133 spec. AFAIK, Micron is the only vendor shipping Samurai implementations in any quantity.
I'd expect to see RDRAM prices drop and SDRAM prices rise if RAMBUS takes hold of the market; the double-speed SDRAM is giving it a real run for the money.

>From what I've seen Dell's RAM prices are usually pretty fair on desktops. However, trying to spec 128MB in a notebook is a bit unreasonable. Their overall quality and service is as good as any I've seen, though.

The only one I've seen with a better track record is HP, and that may be the local service office.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362429 by Jim Nelson on replying to message # by GarL. above.
**quoted removed**
I see from later replies that you have decided to get the RAM. A good move I think! Remember though that you will likely have to play with some settings (VFP almost certainly and OS too if using NT) to make best use of the stuff.
**quoted removed**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362530 by Ed Rauh on 2000/04/22 at 14:20:55 replying to GarL's message #362364 (10th back, above)
>The question still remains -- is the RAM worth it? We can end up almost within hardware budget if we get the 512 Meg of RAM, and go about 50% over hardware budget if go to 1 Gig of Ram. But hardware cost is trivial compared to developer cost, and the cost of having to wait a long time for jobs to finish. So if the Gig will buy us something real, I have no problem fighting for it. That is the question. Will the Gig get us improved speed. The only thing I know on this is that Microsoft says the more RAM the better, and some people on this thread have added that RAM only does you good if your chip can access it directly. (Most modern chips and motherboards can.)
>

The RAM issue is largely determined by the processor and chipset in use. If you do not intend to use a Slot2 (Xeon) processor, there is an upper limit of 512MB of cacheable RAM in the Slot 1 and Athlon processors - and with Celerons and prior processors, that limit is far, far lower - as low as 64MB in some Pentium processor chipsets. With NT and Win2K, memory is alloted from the free memory pool top down - so using non-cacheable memory is guarenteed to use the least capable RAM first. I'd recommend a site that deals with the particulars of hardware implementation - FPA is not a reliable source of information, regardless of their press credentials, they are not sandworms and solder monkeys. A good start point is www.tomshardware.com - covers issues in moderate detail, and will point to more detailed sources if you want to investigate in detail.

I realize that this probably goes against the recommendations of the 'experts' here who make an unqualified statement of "more is better". THey are about as knowledgable about this as they are about subatomic physics, and while they'd like you to believe otherwise, their poinions are flawed. I'm not absolutely up-to-date on what is shipping, so rather than believe me, go look to people who have a clue, as opposed to those who might like to believe they're gawd's gift to hardware.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
********************** I draw your attention, George, to the LAST PARAGRAPH in the last reply above by EdR.****************************
There was only one person who made the simple statement "more is better" and that was me. Thus it is clear that he is touting me as the "expert" though I made no such claim and didn't even come close to saying anything like it! Mr. Rauh also failed to note that actual statement was: I believe that the more RAM the better, but this no doubt depends on how you can control its allocation for the OS, buffering and VFP..
EdR then went on to say: THey are about as knowledgable about this as they are about subatomic physics and while they'd like you to believe otherwise, their poinions are flawed..

I didn't appreciate at all his denigration of myself and his characterization of someone who he has never met and had no knowledge of all in a message was was neither to me nor copied (cc) to me.

Now this was the straw that broke the camel's back, having put up with such nice "Rauhisms as "Alice" and "rent-a-clue" and "porcine byproducts" etc etc etc in many prior messages, also NOT to me but clearly about me.

So I replied to the above message #362530 with the following:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362536 by Jim Nelson on 2000/04/22 at 17:35:48 replying to EdR's message #362530 immediately above.
Enough of your CRAP, Rauh!!
If you cannot be civil in your replies, if you cannot abstain from insults in your replies, then GODDAMNED-WELL KEEP YOUR REPSONSES TO YOURSELF.
Let me repeat that so it is absolutely clear... If you cannot be civil in your replies, if you cannot abstain from insults in your replies, then GODDAMNED-WELL KEEP YOUR REPSONSES TO YOURSELF.
Your capacity for insult DWARFS your technical knowledge.
It is truly sad to see someone of such intellect burdened with the need to insult at every opportunity. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour and stop with the insults.
And yes, "Alice" and "rent-a-clue" and "porcine byproducts" etc etc etc are insults.
**quoted removed**
And EdR replied as follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362704 on 2000/04/24 at 09:08:09
**quoted removed**
Your capacity for disinformation and inaccurate statement makes my capacity for insult fade to insignificance, dear.
I recommend that anyone who would like a dose of reality on hardware issues try some reliable sites - I'd recommend www.tomshardware.com (aka sysdoc.pair.com) or www.intel.com - I made the simple statement that I'm not 100% up to speed on the current Slot1/Socket370 technologies, especially in conjunction with RAMBUS and the Intel 840 chipset AFA reduction in speed as a result of addressing non-cacheable RAM. Of course, I'm certain you've far better recommendations, since you've no need to reference reality to make statements. YMMV. I find that reading the docs helps prevent hoof-in-mouth disease.
You've made your point Mr. Nelson - facts are far less important than displays of temper and posturing when you're called on issues not subject to interpretation.
**quoted removed**
To which I replied:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Hardware for large jobs Thread #362278 Message #362811 on 2000/04/24 at 12:59:59
A near clone of someone else who frequents this place...
SNIP
>
>Your capacity for disinformation and inaccurate statement makes my capacity for insult fade to insignificance, dear.
>
And just where was *my* "capacity for disinformation" exhibited in the exchange you needed to INSULT me about??? Mr. Lipow said: "The only thing I know on this is that Microsoft says the more RAM the better" and I said "I believe the more RAM the better.... Just where is the disinformation in that???

>I recommend that anyone who would like a dose of reality on hardware issues try some reliable sites - I'd recommend www.tomshardware.com (aka sysdoc.pair.com) or www.intel.com - I made the simple statement that I'm not 100% up to speed on the current Slot1/Socket370 technologies, especially in conjunction with RAMBUS and the Intel 840 chipset AFA reduction in speed as a result of addressing non-cacheable RAM. Of course, I'm certain you've far better recommendations, since you've no need to reference reality to make statements. YMMV. I find that reading the docs helps prevent hoof-in-mouth disease.
>
I've been to the tomshardware site several times, specifically to check out the differences between PIII/Athlon and RAMBUS/SDRAM and 133FSB/200B and related things.
You used some marginally related factors about cacheable RAM solely as an excuse to be able to say: "goes against the recommendations of the 'experts' here who make an unqualified statement of "more is better"" and "THey are about as knowledgable about this as they are about subatomic physics" and "as opposed to those who might like to believe they're gawd's gift to hardware". That's all - your *need* to insult.

>You've made your point Mr. Nelson - facts are far less important than displays of temper and posturing when you're called on issues not subject to interpretation.
>
No, I think you've made a point here, Ed... that your need to insult overrides anything else all the time. Mine was not a display of "temper", but rather a simple statement to TELL you to STOP with this crap of insults all the time. It is TIRESOME in the extreme. What "posturing"??? What "issue" did you call me on??? - Are you saying that RAM beyond cacheable is useless and that HD is the better way to go?
Sorry, Ed, but your stating 'temper' and 'posturing' and 'called on issues...' does not make it a fact, and there was no posturing and there was no temper and your "call" was not a "call" at all.
Funny how the guy who mentioned a "twit-filter" more frequently than anyone else just cannot seem to use it for those who he clearly feels are twits. Does his need to insult override cutting out the noise????
Finally, this is the second time you've hurled insults through a reply to another without even copying those of us who were insulted on the reply. This is bad form, wouldn't you say.
Jim N
**quoted removed**
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *