JEMMEX reports no suitable page frame found \ VOGONS

JEMMEX reports no suitable page frame found

Topic actions

First post, by emendelson

Posted on 2012-09-26, 15:07

emendelson Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 845
Joined: 2010-02-14, 02:00

I'm trying to experiment with JEMMEX in DOSBox, and I hope someone can help sort out a problem.

I load DOSBox with a conf file that has ems, xms, and umb all set to "false". When I use config -wc to write the configuration, all those items are correctly listed as false.

MEM reports 632kb of free memory and nothing else.

I then mount a disk image with the JEMMEX files on it. When I run

JEMMEX load

I get a message saying: "System memory found at c800-efff, region might be in use. Warning: no suitable page frame found, EMS functions limited."

MEM now reports 15132kb of extended memory but no EMS.

What am I doing wrong here? I assume it's something obvious, but I haven't been able to figure it out, and would be very grateful for any help.

Reply 1 of 4, by ripsaw8080

Posted on 2012-09-26, 15:42

ripsaw8080 Offline

Rank DOSBox Author

Rank: DOSBox Author
Posts: 5081
Joined: 2006-04-25, 23:24

DOSBox has RAM at C800-CFFF, and JEMM isn't sure what to make of it. Just tell it where to put the page frame, although it will still display a warning: JEMMEX FRAME=E000 LOAD

Reply 2 of 4, by emendelson

Posted on 2012-09-26, 15:56

emendelson Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 845
Joined: 2010-02-14, 02:00

Thank you (yet again...). That worked perfectly - after I wasted a lot of time experimenting. It's possible to suppress the error message (if I dare) by redirecting the output to nul.

I wanted to see whether JEMMEX provided any added speed for my WordPerfect project. So I tested it by running a search-and-replace in WordPerfect using DOSBox's native EMS/XMS/UMB and using JEMMEX.

It turned out that native DOSBox let me perform the search-and-replace about ten times faster than JEMMEX did. Maybe I'm doing something wrong in my testing, but the contrast was very dramatic.

Thanks again for sorting out that problem.

Reply 3 of 4, by ripsaw8080

Posted on 2012-09-26, 16:29

ripsaw8080 Offline

Rank DOSBox Author

Rank: DOSBox Author
Posts: 5081
Joined: 2006-04-25, 23:24

Why did you mount a disk image for this experiment? Whatever the reason, make sure that when you're comparing results you're using the same mount type in both cases, because local files are considerably faster than files on an image.

Reply 4 of 4, by emendelson

Posted on 2012-09-26, 16:54

emendelson Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 845
Joined: 2010-02-14, 02:00

Sorry - I wasn't thinking when I posted that first post and made a mistake. In fact, I didn't mount a disk image - I mounted a folder as a disk in the usual way of mounting a folder as the C: drive.

I haven't fully woken up yet, but that's no excuse for writing the wrong thing.

Go to top of page Go to top of page

Back to DOSBox Development