# Morrus - how much RAM?



## der_kluge (Feb 21, 2002)

This afternoon, the site bogged down pretty good, and started returning quite a few errors.  Some of those were "erealloc" errors.  I'm not familiar with "erealloc" but "malloc" and "realloc" (short for reallocate) are C functions which handle memory assignment.

What I'm driving at is that if "realloc" were to fail in C, there's only 1 reason for it - not enough RAM.

How much RAM does your server have, Morrus?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 22, 2002)

300-and-something Mb, I think.  Not sure.


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 22, 2002)

Hmm, I would suggest upgrading to 512 mb if at all possible.  Memory is cheap right now.  At peak times, with 80+ users on at a time, I just don't think 300mb would cut it.  Most UNIX systems (Granted, the architecture is different) have 1 gig of RAM - at a minumum.


----------



## Darkness (Feb 22, 2002)

Only 300-something mb?

I have 256 mb on my home PC and I'm thinking of doubling it. Man, I didn't realize that the boards could run on so few mbs...


----------



## Ysgarran (Feb 22, 2002)

What is the max ram the machine can have?


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 22, 2002)

I think it largely depends on the Motherboard.  But, most Motherboards today should allow at least 1,024 megabytes - 4 256 Meg chips.


----------



## omedon (Feb 24, 2002)

Wow only that much? 512 MB costs around $100 CDN which I think converts to something like $0.75 US. That stuff is cheap.

Especially when compared to gaming books.

I would probably pick up a Gigabyte if your computer supports it, 512 minimum.

Maybe you could ask that people open up there wallets to for the Buy Morrus More RAM fund.


----------



## reapersaurus (Feb 24, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *300-and-something Mb, I think.  Not sure. *



Whoa.

Morrus, was that really you that said that?

You're NOT SURE?

That doesn't really make me feel like you have the best hold on these boards as i'd previously assumed. (not like you care, but that's quite a telling quote)

Most people I teach in the industry have a _minimum_ of 512 MB of RAM if they even have a few people connecting to it.
In our classrooms, the server can bog even with only 10 people connecting to the Win 2K servers (256 MB).

I'd recommend an update to a GB of RAM.
Anything less and it wouldn't seem to me that performance is much of an issue with you. (again, not like you care my professional opinion...)


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 25, 2002)

Reapersaurus, are you laboring under the impression that Morrus should have memorized the details of the server this site runs on? You don't need to answer - that's a facetious question - but I'm pretty sure that you could have said "I recommend you get more RAM, based on my experience, which is..."  The manner in which you phrased it can't be taken to be anything but insulting.


----------



## reapersaurus (Feb 25, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *Reapersaurus, are you laboring under the impression that Morrus should have memorized the details of the server this site runs on? *



well, actually...  Yes.
The amount of RAM a server has is one of the, if not the MOST, important things about a server.

And it's ironic you phrased what i should have said that way, because that's almost verbatim of what i did say in the other thread.  

Based on the amount of work and effort and as i understand personal moneys that Morrus has put into maintinaing this web site and helping it thrive, i was, and am, quite shocked that Morrus would not know that amount of RAM that the ENWorld server is running.

ESPecially considering all the occurances of errors when lots of people are on the site.
I believe the errors were even telling Morrus that there wasn't enough RAM, right?

It is a well-understood and documented fact of networking that Win2K NEEDS lots of RAM to function well.
RAM is cheap.

therefore, I'll say it in this thread:
It is my personal and professional opinion that Morrus should plop a 256 MB stick of RAM in the ENBoards server.
They are less than $60 here: http://www.pricewatch.com


----------



## Zappo (Feb 25, 2002)

I think PCat found the "Anything less and it wouldn't seem to me that performance is much of an issue with you. (again, not like you care my professional opinion...)" slightly insulting towards Morrus, who has spent a lot of time to make the boards work, and undoubtedly _cares_. Not having a technical competence doesn't mean you don't care. Especially since I recall him saying that on the vBullletin boards they told him that those errors were probably due to configuration problems.

Aaanyway, the suggestion to buy more RAM is a good one; it's a cheap one-time buy and I'm sure it would improve performance dramatically.


----------



## Ysgarran (Feb 26, 2002)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> *well, actually...  Yes.
> The amount of RAM a server has is one of the, if not the MOST, important things about a server.
> *




I'm not sure how the hosting is being done for this site.   It may be that Morrus actually has physical access to the machine, he may not.   I don't know.

I'm currently looking at:
http://www.rackshack.net/
to share time with a friend on running a couple of different sites.   I would prefer that the machine has more memory but at least I have all the access I need to the machine.  I haven't decided yet, I need to investigate some other options.


Ysgarran.


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2002)

Just so you hear more than Reapersaurus saying it (which was in truth a little on the low-tact side Reap), I highly recommend the server for your site be bumped up to at least 512 MB in RAM, if not more - Where Windows 2000 is concerned, the more the merrier.

If you need any assistance with that, any of the "computer-savvy" board members would be glad to help you - all that is needed is the make and model number of the system in question, and we would be able to single out the appropriate type of RAM (For instance, Compaq computers cannot use standard 3rd party RAM). 

www.kingston.com has an excellent online memory-search program, and Kingston has both good price and quality to back them up. I believe both Viking and PNY, two other excellent quality memory distributors, can help with this.

P.S. - Do you have actual physical access to the server? I thought I recalled in a post that you did not, but did not know if that changed with the server purchase.


----------



## der_kluge (Feb 26, 2002)

There you go, Morrus.  You asked for help, and you got it.  We recommend - upgrade the RAM.  

That'll be $2000


----------



## Morrus (Feb 26, 2002)

I'll be upgrading the server as soon as I am able.  I don't have physical access to it, and upgrade options consist only of upgrading from one 'package' to another - so just adding RAM isn't an option.  I also intend to double the processor power for good measure.  It will, however, mean quite an increase in the monthly server fees, so it will have to wait until I'm sure that EN World can afford it.


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 26, 2002)

Put me on the list of those who recommend MORE ram.

(In fact, that was one of the first thing I told Rus here when I heard about the new server... heh)

256mb is MINIMUM for a normal PC running Win2000, to get moderate performance. A W2K *server* requires some 512-1gb RAM.

I would recommend kingston, crucial and corsair RAM.


----------



## Henry@home (Feb 27, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *I'll be upgrading the server as soon as I am able.  I don't have physical access to it, and upgrade options consist only of upgrading from one 'package' to another - so just adding RAM isn't an option.*




Sounds like a terrible deal, but that's life, I suppose. I'm sorry to hear it. Processor power is always good, but RAM is the stuff of life before even raw processor power for a Windows 2000 PC.

Thanks for the clearer picture! I'm sorry that I easn't up on php and mail server configuration a while back to help with your earlier problems, but I hope I speak for everyone here when I say, if we can ever help, let us know!


----------



## Darkness (Feb 27, 2002)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> *256mb is MINIMUM for a normal PC running Win2000, to get moderate performance.*



Heh. Good to hear - I was thinking about upgrading my PC's RAM to 512mb (from 256) and starting to use Win 2K (instead of Win98). So it all should work out, then.


----------



## Gish Makai (Feb 27, 2002)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> *256mb is MINIMUM for a normal PC running Win2000, to get moderate performance. A W2K *server* requires some 512-1gb RAM.*



I am running Win2k Pro on 128 RAM and it runs absolutely fine. I dunno where you get 256 minimum.......but I whole heartily agree...more RAM the better


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 27, 2002)

Gish Makai said:
			
		

> *I am running Win2k Pro on 128 RAM and it runs absolutely fine. I dunno where you get 256 minimum.......but I whole heartily agree...more RAM the better  *




Cool! You are the only one I know that can do this  I bet 100$ that you will increase your performance - a lot!! - by adding a stick of 256mb RAM. They are cheap nowadays


----------



## Gish Makai (Feb 27, 2002)

Yea...I have a 128 stick in now. I'm debating on getting another 128 or just go for a 256 stick.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 27, 2002)

Well...

To upgrade from my current package to one with 1 Gb of RAM will cost me an extra $800 per month!  

You heard right - $800 every single month for another 614 Mb RAM.  

Over a year, that means I'd be paying $9600 for 614 Mb RAM.  Or over $15 per Mb.  The most expensive RAM in the whole world.  Ever.

Of course, it's not the RAM itself that's costing all that.  It's the extra stuff that I'd be forced to buy if I upgraded the package.  Stuff I neither need or want.

So... any other options you can think of?


----------



## Tharkun (Feb 28, 2002)

How about using Linux instead of a windows server?  Can't be feeding the evil empire you know if you don't have too


----------



## wsclark (Feb 28, 2002)

Hi Morrus,

From what I can gather in this thread, the machine that the message boards are on definitely needs a major boost in memory. I also gather that this machine is not yours but some type of package deal provided for your use from some provider. This leads to another thing to check into.

The boards are slow for me between 12PM and 4PM EST, consistently during that time period (not consistently slow, sometimes it is fine, it's the time period that is consistent). This time frame would be 5PM to 9PM your time, assuming your provider is local to you. You should ask your provider 1) if they perform daily backups on your machine and if they do 2) what time do they perform them and in what manner. If they are performing backups during this time frame, that may be what is bring access to a crawl. There might be other methods to perform the backup or at least change the time it is performed so that it happens when message board activity is low.

If you can post information about what exactly they are giving you, I'm sure that I and a lot of others could give you quite a bit more advice. If that fails, I'll sic my wife on them (who can basically get to the head person of an organization in an average of 5 minutes  , I'm not kidding.)

If there is anything I can do for you, I'll be glad to lend a hand.

Bill
Senior System Programmer and all around jack-of-all trades with computers


----------



## Grazzt (Feb 28, 2002)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Cool! You are the only one I know that can do this  I bet 100$ that you will increase your performance - a lot!! - by adding a stick of 256mb RAM. They are cheap nowadays  *





Actually the mins for W2K aren't really all that much:

Computer/Processor: 133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU

Memory: 64 MB of RAM recommended minimum

Hard Disk: 2GB HDD (min of 650MB of free space) 


I actually installed and setup a network for a local client about a month ago and 7 of the machines had 64 MB of RAM. Three had 128 MB of RAM. All took Win2K without a hitch, though it was rather slow and annoying on the 64 MB machines....but hey...what can ya do.


----------



## LeeCHeSSS (Feb 28, 2002)

Morrus said:
			
		

> *So... any other options you can think of? *




How about you switch webhosting companies? This one is obviously ripping you off. Any decent one would negotiate with you and get you on a machine with more ram WITHOUT all the other added features a package upgrade comes with (and thus less cost). I'm assuming you _have_ asked them for a special solution?

I would suggest one if I knew a better one for your situation, but alas, my site hasn't nearly as much members as yours, so I don't have to worry about stuff like this.


----------



## Zappo (Feb 28, 2002)

Eech. No way you give them all that money. Ask them a special agreement, that they put in just some RAM and you give them a reasonable extra (some tens of $ would be reasonable, I reckon). I'm not an expert, but most of the few companies I've known allow that. You could hint that you may decide to dump them if they refuse.


----------



## Psionicist (Feb 28, 2002)

Grazzt said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Actually the mins for W2K aren't really all that much:
> ...




I was talking about real world use. Your computer would be much slower with 64mb RAM and W2K than 64mb RAM and say, Win98.

Based on my own experience, Win98 are much faster and more stable than Win2000 unless you have at least 256 mb RAM. Then W2K rocks.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 28, 2002)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> *Cool! You are the only one I know that can do this  I bet 100$ that you will increase your performance - a lot!! - by adding a stick of 256mb RAM. They are cheap nowadays  *




Eh. The only thing that I ran (I'm not a serious gamer) that was noticeably faster on my PIII-800 with 256 MB of RAM vs. 128 MB was Diablo II. And the only thing that was noticeably faster with 512MB vs. 256MB was Visual Studio.NET, which runs about the same on my work desktop (PIII-1GHz with 256MB) as it does at home. Both systems run Win2K Pro.

Still, if you've got a desktop from the trailing edge of the SDRAM era, getting 512MB isn't a bad idea. It doesn't cost much, and may help you sometimes.

For busy servers, though, get as much memory as you can afford. It never hurts.


----------



## der_kluge (Mar 1, 2002)

Seems to me that, for that much money, you could just own your own server.  Buy your own Win2K machine, get a dedicated IP address, and pay for the hosting service yourself.  That should solve all the problems, and then you are the master of your own domain. (literally)


----------



## njorgard (Mar 2, 2002)

*This is all very interesting...*

Morrus,

I do alot of work with W2K web-based applications and the architectures that support them.  I can tell you that for the price you would be paying to upgrade to that next package you could be getting alot more.  I wholeheartedly agree with what die-kluge said about owning your own server.  The only thing you would need to worry about then is to protect that server from hackers using a router switch (Linksys offers a few good ones) and a firewall software (BlackICE Defender comes to mind).  I don't know your level of technical expertise (nor do I think it should be a topic of discussion in this threat  - I think we all value and respect the contribution you have made by owning this site regardless of technical prowess) but I know that there are many companies out there who would be more than glad to provide you all the bandwidth this server requires for about $100 a month.  I know there are lots of us in these boards who would be willing to help with the research.  I'm also sure the people who own those other websites hosted by this server would be willing to pony-up some time and effort into this endeavor.

Again, I am writng this message basing my calculations on the numbers you have disclossed.  You should be able to get a quality server with 1GB RAM, a RAID controller so that you can have 2 mirrored disks using a RAID 1 configuration, and maybe a double processor for about $6,000.  The router and the firewall would end up costing around $400.  Finally, getting the dedicated IP address through a service provider and registering the domain on a DNS would end up costing you about $1500 for the whole year.  The upside is that most of these costs are one-time costs and you end up owning an infrastructure that you can build on.

Just my two cents...


----------



## Zappo (Mar 2, 2002)

That would be _the_ solution. However, I am pretty sure that Morrus doesn't have the technical competence needed to run a server (no offense meant at all!), and 6000$ are a lot even for a one-time expense, for something that after all isn't a real source of income (I don't know the revenue the site generates, but I don't think it pays itself, or if it does, it does barely so).


----------

