Cannot connect TRF solution?

[Gary D]

EDIT: This is not a solution but a try at a suggestive fix

Please read this thread by Cynthia first about the solution to this problem:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?postid=238906#post238906

Add some swap space. How to do: right clic on desktop --> properties --> advanced --> performances --> advanced --> modify --> choose a memory size x1.5 than the RAM size (e.G i choose 512 for initial and 512 for max)

I have been trying solution # 2. (Instead of clicking on desktop, I clicked on My Computer and i get to the right location)

I have 959 MB of RAM available after the video card.


959 times 1.5 equals 1439 MB



As you can see, Windoze recommends 1438 MB but only allows 1344 MB.

Attached is the Everest Report on my memory.

The question is how do I get a bigger page swap file size? I am trying to find out if this solution works

[blutach]

Put a small swap file on that drive and a large one on the H drive.

Regards

[Chewy]

Gary,
Understanding memory(real and virtual) use is kind of hard. What have you filled your C drive up with? 1344MB is plenty big enough for a swap file with
almost a gig of real ram. That's not the danger. You always need a few gigs
in your system partition free as a margin of error.

[Gary D]

@ blutach: How do I do that? BTW Drive H is a partition of drive C

[Gary D]

@ chewy

This is just an experiment to see if that solution works for the TRF problem.

I burn manually anyway now.

Research! Research! Research!

[Chewy]

that solution works for the TRF problem.

nope nothing to do with it

[LT. Columbo]

it would be nice to see if we (you fellas) could discover a solution to the nero 6.6.1.4 and shrink auto burn function though. you say it ain't gonna happen chewy? what is the technical answer to why it doesn't work now currently anyway?

[Gary D]

To blutach and Chewy

I screwed around with this for 3 hours now. Nothing has worked. (I will remove this link from my signature.)

BUT it has produced another byproduct: I have sped up my shrinking by 25% to 11000KB/sec on this computer (AMD3100)from 8000 KB/sec. I selected my virtual memory as twice actual. (2048MB) I could not believe the increase in speed!!! Then I put another 1024 on Drive H and the results were neglible.

So sometimes screwing around a bit helps.

Thanking you for your help, Gary

[Chewy]

Gary,
My tests with 1024 cas 2 pc3200 vs 512 cas 2.5 pc4000 found the gig
10% slower on my system with my standard shrink 70% transcode.
AFAIK shrink did not touch virtual memory

LT,
My assumption is nero did something funky when they integrated ultra buffer into the
6.6.1.4 burn engine and the shrink call doesn't work. Ultra buffer is a little flakey, it's trying to grab way more ram than it needs, the only thing I can figure out it must be trying to get you to burn at 16x
on an old slow system than can't keep up. My logic is I can burn 4400 MB in 5 min 20 seconds with
512 megs of ram and 6.6.0.xxx which only uses 80 megs, Imgburn only uses 40, so Nero screws up again.
Maybe a plot to get people to upgrade and pay out the wazoo for 7.xxxx.

[blutach]

Shrink is different for each DVD, depoending on the complexity of each frame. You need to do a test with the same DVD, with and without extra Virtual Memory.

Regards

[Chewy]

never turn off virtual memory tho, far too complexe a problem, most of it's use is just to map extra addressable memory space that programs might need.
You sure as heck don't want extra surplus ram tied up with this virtual need.

Use task manager to graph swap file and ram in use during a test

[LT. Columbo]

LT,
My assumption is nero did something funky when they integrated ultra buffer into the
6.6.1.4 burn engine and the shrink call doesn't work. Ultra buffer is a little flakey, it's trying to grab way more ram than it needs, the only thing I can figure out it must be trying to get you to burn at 16x
on an old slow system than can't keep up. My logic is I can burn 4400 MB in 5 min 20 seconds with
512 megs of ram and 6.6.0.xxx which only uses 80 megs, Imgburn only uses 40, so Nero screws up again.
Maybe a plot to get people to upgrade and pay out the wazoo for 7.xxxx.

i wonder if it ever will be possible or a fix or patch that can make it work. if anyone can think of it here it would be you chewy

[Gary D]

What I was doing was running an already shrunked folder of 2834 MB (Dick And Jane-WS-Movie Only) into another folder. This way shrink had already analyzed it the first time about 3 nights ago. So basically it was a file transfer from one folder to another without AEC. Although these rates seem high, you get the same rates when you don't have to shrink a movie to below DVD5. I was using this method with a short file so i wouldn't have to wait as long between call-up attempts by shrink to nero. I also deleted the temp every time between results.

[Chewy]

Gary I just had shrink take my KKfull 4400MB video files from one hard drive to another and make an iso of it. Started at 41000KB/s ended at 37000.



my swap file stayed at 768MB(windows default for 512 megs of ram)

[Gary D]

@ Chewy..WOW...I am green with envy and red in the pocketbook!!!!




The better question is has anyone gotten this method to work?????