Question about Streamline 3.1 heap replacement

[rynak777]

From what i read, in Skyrim the engine at launch allocates 256mb of RAM, and if it runs out of it, then a second chunk. For some reason, spikes in memory usage can then cause OOM - i suppose this implies that Skyrim never resizes the 2nd chunk and never adds a 3rd chunk (all of this sounds too insane to be true, but then again, the ES engines have plenty of other insane things).

 

That's Skyrim, but how does this work in Oblivion? From what i read, it too has OOM issues, even when one has enough RAM, so i guess similiar things are at work in oblivion?

 

Streamline 3.1 as an experimental feature that allows replacing oblivion's heap. It also has a setting for memory to allocate to the heap, but the docs do not tell if this is the amount of memory initially allocated, or the maximum amount.

 

Is anyone familiar with those things and can explain?

[rynak777]

After much searching, found the all important sentence in the docs:

 

 

1: FastMM4 heap.  This heap is fast and flexible.  
2: Windows standard heap.  OS dependant.  A really bad idea on XP, but okay on Vista and Windows 7.  
3: SimpleHeap1, made by me.  
4: TBBMM, aka TBBMalloc.  Made by Intel.  
5: ThreadHeap2, made by me.  Fast.  
6: ThreadHeap3, made by me.  Fast.  
Note that heap algorithms 3, 5, and 6 are statically sized based upon the iHeapSize setting.  Heap algorithms 1, 2, & 4 will resize themselves as needed.

 

Given that algo 6 is the default, i question the wisdom of the defaults in the ini, especially since the default allocSize is just.... 450mb. I'd expect anyone with a lot of large mods turning on heap replacement, but not changing the settings, to run out of memory often.

 

Anyways, so the question about streamline behavior is answered.

 

What would still be interesting, is what the default behavior of oblivion (without heap replacement) is.

 

------

 

EDIT:

A warning for those who consider using TBBMM, which in the streamline docs is implied to be the third fastest. The developer of FastMM4 in 2011 had this to say about TBBMM:

 

 

It's one problem to write a memory manager that is fast, another to write one that uses address space efficiently. Achieving both at the same time is an even bigger problem, which is what I strive to achieve with FastMM. I could not get TBMM to complete the Fastcode Memory Manager Benchmark and Validation tool, so I do not know exactly how fast it is. The last version I saw never released memory back to the operating system which is not acceptable behaviour for a general purpose memory manager.

 

In other words, with TBBMM your oblivion won't run out of memory, but your operating system might.

 

Personally, i'm going to play oblivion with FastMM4 for a while - by my understanding and info, seems to be the fastest option that is stable and sane, even if it might not be thread-aware.

 

 

 

[Symon]

I've always used FastMM4 and never had an issue with it.

[gregathit]

Me as well.  FastMM4 always worked for me.