What does an OOM look like in DX10?

[gliderman]

In DX9, we get an error message confirming that we have suffered an Out of Memory error, followed by a complete shut down of FSX.

In DX10, do we still get that error message, does FSX still close down in an uncommanded way, or does it just freeze? I wonder if the error handling routine was different under DX10?

I ask because I ramped up LOD radius a bit to 6.5, and suffered a screen freeze after about 45 minutes airborne. There was no OOM error message, and FSX didn't shut itself down, I had to kill the process, but it just seemed to me like an OOM error, despite my having some 1300 Mb of usable VAS according to Pete Dowson's VAS Monitor LUA.

Thanks for any observations.

Phil

[ShawnG]

OOM's in DX10 act exactly like DX9. dings from FSUIPC followed by the windowed message. afraid something else happened to your flight other than an OOM.

[Paul J]

In DX9, we get an error message confirming that we have suffered an Out of Memory error, followed by a complete shut down of FSX.

In DX10, do we still get that error message, does FSX still close down in an uncommanded way, or does it just freeze? I wonder if the error handling routine was different under DX10?

I ask because I ramped up LOD radius a bit to 6.5, and suffered a screen freeze after about 45 minutes airborne. There was no OOM error message, and FSX didn't shut itself down, I had to kill the process, but it just seemed to me like an OOM error, despite my having some 1300 Mb of usable VAS according to Pete Dowson's VAS Monitor LUA.

Thanks for any observations.

Phil

Hi Phil; As Shawn says - the OOM is an OS error caused by a running application attempting to go beyond the 4 gig 32-bit memory limit, and has nothing to do with DX9 or DX10 - except that - with DX9 the GPU and CPU both share a portion of system memory equal to that of the GPU's allocated memory - which gives less system memory "headroom" for the running process. When using DX10 - the GPU handles all of the graphics functions, and so the system has more system memory available - hence you will have fewer (if any) OOM's.

The error you're experiencing sounds exactly like the UIAutomationCore.dll issue that used to plague FSX. To fix - just go here, download it to the root folder of your FSX installation (where fsx.exe lives), unzip and rename it, and then restart fsx - nothing else. It does not need registering, as that would compromise the system's Windows 7 versions. The correct version is 6.0.5840.16386 6.0.6001.18000 will also work - but is not reliable, and will ocasionaly fail - ok!

All the Best,

pj

[gliderman]

Thank you all.

I have downloaded the new UIautomation dll Paul, and it's still happening.

I think it is sweetfx related, but I can't put my finger on it.

Phil

[Paul J]

Thank you all.

I have downloaded the new UIautomation dll Paul, and it's still happening.

I think it is sweetfx related, but I can't put my finger on it.

Phil

...then you'll need to publish your system specs here, Phil, plus your Inspector or RadeonPro screenie and your fsx.cfg, as there isn't sufficient information here for any deeper diagnostics - ok!

(and SweetFX doesn't exhibit this behavior)

Thanks,

pj

[Naismith]

FWIW, aside from the improved UIautomation.dll file, I found one way to avoid OOM was to not use the Windows swapfile. The proviso being you have enough RAM (I have 16Gb e.g.) to try this. I have not had an OOM message since I did this months ago.

[sleightflight]

I also have 16 gig of fairly fast ram, I'd like to try not using the windows swap file, can you tell me how you did this please.

[Naismith]

Here are the instructions.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-ca/w...#1TC=windows-7

Please do some research before you attempt this as what works for me may be different for you. For example, my C Drive is an SSD, FSX is on D which is a Western Digital HD. My Vid card is a GTX 660, my processor an I7 1200K over clocked, My MB and Asus P8 board.

[Adamski_NZ]

I can't offer any advice, but I'd just like to confirm that I still get OOMs ... but very rarely, since making the switch. It doesn't make them any less annoying when they *do* happen (ie. Coming into land after a 2hr flight in real time!).

Adam.

[Paul J]

I can't offer any advice, but I'd just like to confirm that I still get OOMs ... but very rarely, since making the switch. It doesn't make them any less annoying when they *do* happen (ie. Coming into land after a 2hr flight in real time!).

Adam.

Good Morning/Evening Adam: You could try setting custom size(s) for your swap file, per these pics. Windows needs something around a hundred meg on C, so I just make it 450/450, and then decide what and where for the other spaces. Just make the upper and lower limits the same number, save and reboot. Custom sized swap spaces won't fragment in the way that Windows-managed spaces will (still do), so the chance of an OOM because of fragmentation is minimal - in fact I can honestly say I have never had an OOM when using this method.

Best,

pj

[lownslo]

so I just make it 450/450, and then decide what and where for the other spaces. Just make the upper and lower limits the same number, save and reboot. Custom sized swap spaces won't fragment in the way that Windows-managed spaces will (still do), so the chance of an OOM because of fragmentation is minimal - in fact I can honestly say I have never had an OOM when using this method.

This! Greg

[Adamski_NZ]

Hi Paul (early morning here, LOL!) - I've always used a fixed size swap file (with both values set the same). I tried the "no swap file at all" trick way back - and it was a total disaster. I was lucky not to have cream-crackered the whole PC.

My current swap file is 4Gb (4000/4000)- as I have 8Gb of RAM. The system itself is stable as a rock (always has been). Do you think I need to up it a bit?

BTW: Your post says 450/450 ... shouldn't that be 4500/4500?

Adam.

EDIT: Correction: Mine is currently set to 12.5 Gb (12240/12240 as recommended by my Win7). I'm not entirely sure why my Windows recommends such a high figure.

[Paul J]

Hi Paul (early morning here, LOL!) - I've always used a fixed size swap file (with both values set the same). I tried the "no swap file at all" trick way back - and it was a total disaster.


Yep! - no swap can be dangerous.


My current swap file is 4Gb (4000/4000)- as I have 8Gb of RAM. (always has been). Do you think I need to up it a bit?


- Nope, in fact I would drop it down to 2 or 3 gig. Swap is barely used most of the time. "as I have 8Gb of RAM. " - nothing to do with it, Adam.


BTW: Your post says 450/450 ... shouldn't that be 4500/4500?


Nope - four hundred and fifty MegaBytes is suffish. You need a small swap file (properly "page file") on the same root folder on the drive that contains the Operating System - generally C:. Windows uses this when it starts, and it needs to be big enough to hold a crash dump.

The page file in Windows 7, is part of memory management, used by SuperFetch and the boot prefetcher to optimize your system for performance. By default, the minimum size on a 32-bit (x86) system is 1.5 times the amount of physical RAM if physical RAM is less than 1 GB, and equal to the amount of physical RAM plus 300 MB if 1 GB or more is installed. The default maximum size is three times the amount of RAM, regardless of how much physical RAM is installed. If your PC's proc supports PAE - Physical Address Extension (almost any gaming pc) then the maximum page file size can be up to 16TB..... hmmm!

If you have more than one physical disk, moving the page file to a fast drive that doesn’t contain your Windows system files is a good idea. Using multiple page files split over two or more physical disks is an even better idea, because your disk controller can process multiple requests to read or write data concurrently. Don’t create two (or more) page files when using multiple partitions on a single drive, though. 1 to 3 TB drive are available nowadays, and there is certainly good reasons to divide a large drive up into smaller partitions - BUT - don't put a page file on more than one partition in that same drive, as it's going to beat itself to death - the heads on the physical disk having to do far more work, loading pages from different portions of the same disk sequentially, rather than loading data from a single contiguous region of the hard disk. Not good.



EDIT: Correction: Mine is currently set to 12.5 Gb (12240/12240 as recommended by my Win7). I'm not entirely sure why my Windows recommends such a high figure.


It's because Windows still defaults to the old way of setting the page file size, and this was done by guesstimating the system's physical RAM times 1.5. It's no longer true, per the above.

[Adamski_NZ]

"as I have 8Gb of RAM. " - nothing to do with it, Adam.

Yep - I know - I just mentioned it as I thought you'd know what the recommended size for an *Gb RAM system would be ... which you subsequently did (thanks!).

Thanks also for explaining that ludicrously high "recommended" size. So ... I'll plug in 450Mb (450/450 - as you *rightly* say) and report back.

I only have the one HD - partitioned into two - with the page file sitting on the default C:\ as per usual. If I add another HD (which I may have to, soon) then chances are it will be faster than my current one, so I may either spread the page file across the two physical drives - or move it completely to the new (faster) HD altogether. I've done this in the past, but never really saw any great improvement.

Adam.

[Paul J]

Thanks also for explaining that ludicrously high "recommended" size. So ... I'll plug in 450Mb (450/450 - as you *rightly* say) and report back.

Noooo.. I keep a small one on the C: only because the OS wants to see one as it starts, and I have four other drives. My main pagefile(s) are on these separate hard drives, with none on the SSD (FSX). If you only have one drive - then make it, say 2,500/2,500 on the C:. Don't bother about the 450meg until you pop in that new one.

Chances are it will be faster than my current one, (so I'll) move it completely to the new (faster) HD altogether. I've done this in the past, but never really saw any great improvement.

The improvement will be by making it custom size, giving the no-fragmentation benefit.

All the best,

pj

[sleightflight]

Thanks Naismith, at the moment I have let windows control the page file, think I need to change that setting.

[Naismith]

Page File sizing seems to be a controversial subject, everyone has a differing opinion. At Toms Hardware e.g. I have seen many variations on the theme. I cannot recall where I saw the No File if you have lots of RAM, but I tried it and it worked - I was running DX9 at the time, and the OOM were solved. I upped to DX10 2 or 3 months back and never thought about it, I was having no OOM experiences. But now it seems possibly dangerous I have now set mine to the 450/450 as mentioned above. We will see how that goes. I put my faith in Paul!

[Paul J]

I have now set mine to the 450/450 as mentioned above. We will see how that goes. I put my faith in Paul!

Hahaha! (not sure if that's good or bad...!)

Anyway - please don't misunderstand these figures and sizes. I use three or four paging files, and I don't put "the main paging file" on the C:, as it will have an impact on the OS's performance. This is the rule for me, and comes from long experience as a (Unix) Systems Admin.

I only put a small paging file on the C: as Windows needs one - 100 MB being adequate, so I just use 450 MB, as our modern drives are pretty large when compared to the first hard drives of a few years ago, so I can be generous! It could be 300 MB: it could well be 100MB (but not less).

The "main paging file" can go on any other drive, as long as it's not on C:, and preferably not on the FSX drive! But one must have one. Having three or four more drives allows you to put one on each drive, and this will increase performance over a single paging file - clearer?

All the best,

pj