VOGONS

Any additional hints for making Dosbox smaller in terms of memory footprint?

Topic actions

First post, by tomaswoj

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Howdy,

i just picked Kolijoco's S60 port, and rebuild for UIQ3 (another flavour of Symbian phones). I managed to get 6-8MB of DOS emulated RAM with only 20-22MB of free phone RAM available. However 8MB is pretty unstable.

I lowered TLB a bit more (than already recommended - 64*1024, i lowered it to 16*1024). Does this mean, that the only impact is on adressable memory size ? (i.e. my change will decrease it from 256megs to 64megs). Or will this sacrifize emulation stability?

I lowered a max number of open dirs. I cut all the GUS stuff (GUSRam part). Render scallers are set to 0.

Is there anything more I could do to bring the memory down ? what i would like to achieve is : dynamic core + VGA - all the sound stuff - all the network stuff + 8MB of (XMS/EMS) within 20megs of free RAM.

Does anyone know, what are the memory implications of dynamic core vs. normal/simple core ? Also will XMS/EMS setting to true increase required memory?

S60 and UIQ3 ports are based on 0.72 version of the DOSBOX. I heard/read somewhere that 0.63 might be more suitable for memory optimizations. Can someone comment on that ?

Thanks in advance
Cheers
tomaswoj

Reply 1 of 1, by wd

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

Does anyone know, what are the memory implications of dynamic core vs. normal/simple core ?

Usually the recompiler is only effective if you can store a lot of translations,
so if you're already low at memory better stick to the simple core and hope
that your compiler does a good job (profiling).

Also will XMS/EMS setting to true increase required memory?

No, they're just different means to access the physical emulated memory.
If you set both to false the memory is still accessible to apps that use
protected mode or the int15 memory interfacing.

I heard/read somewhere that 0.63 might be more suitable for memory optimizations.

TLB addressing was different, if you have stability issues with 0.72 when
lowering the tlb size then move on to the cvs and check the respective means.

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to DOSBox Development
Close window
Close window