Jump to content

ImgBurn Support Forum uses cookies. Read the Privacy Policy for more info. To remove this message, please click the button to the right:    I accept the use of cookies

Photo

VirtualAlloc Failed: Not enough storage is available ...


Forum Rules

Read the Guides forum if you don't know how to do something. :readbook:
If you have a question or a problem, check the FAQ and use the Search to see if you can find the answer for yourself. :lightbulb:
If you're having trouble burning double layer media, read Here.
Still stuck? Create a new thread and describe your issue in detail.
Make sure you include a copy of the program's log in your post. No log = :chair:


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 12:52 PM

The next message says: Failed to initialize FIFO buffer (536.870.912 bytes)

I have reviving old threads, so I created a new one.

This time, I'm trying to read from a CD to an iso file. I have XP x64 with 6GB RAM.
I have v2.5.0.0. I didn't have this problem with version 2.4.2.0. I didn't change anything in the settings.

Transfer length = 64KB
Buffer = 512MB
Enable buffer recovery = Yes


If I set the buffer to slightly lower than 512 (say, 500MB) it works.

I think this is a bug in ImgBurn. If you confirm so, you can move the thread to the appropriate forum.

Two things make me believe it:
1. Not being able to handle 512MB of buffer in a system with 5GB free RAM makes no sense.
2. As I said, v2.4.2.0 works with max buffer setting.

Edited by Cube 8, 09 August 2009 - 12:56 PM.


#2 LIGHTNING UK!

LIGHTNING UK!

    Author of ImgBurn

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 09 August 2009 - 01:45 PM

ImgBurn just calls the VirtualAlloc API function. If it fails then it fails, there's nothing I can do about it.
Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

Before asking questions, search the forum to see if someone else already has.

Use the FAQ and Guides forums to your advantage. I don't want to have to tell you to read them!

#3 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 01:57 PM

I agree and won't argue about that.
How do you explain the fact that it worked in v2.4.2.0? Did you change any of the API parameters?

#4 LIGHTNING UK!

LIGHTNING UK!

    Author of ImgBurn

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:07 PM

Did that version allow for the same buffer size?

No, I haven't touched how the function is called.

I guess some other allocation is just preventing Windows from getting 512MB exactly how it needs it for the function to succeed. I don't pretend to know the details of what's actually going on behind the scenes with the API.
Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

Before asking questions, search the forum to see if someone else already has.

Use the FAQ and Guides forums to your advantage. I don't want to have to tell you to read them!

#5 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:17 PM

Yeah, it allowed setting exactly 512MB.
Anyway, this small workaround is not really a problem. Allocating 500 instead of 512, makes almost no difference.

I would recommend you should look through this (if there is anything you can do - maybe MSDN?). There's no point in having the setting of 512 available to users and not being able to use it.

#6 LIGHTNING UK!

LIGHTNING UK!

    Author of ImgBurn

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 09 August 2009 - 02:53 PM

It really isn't worth my time.

A buffer of that size is pointless. The defaults work fine and I'm happy with that. I'd drop the max back to 256MB but then odd people would just complain.

Also, just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work for someone else.
Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

Before asking questions, search the forum to see if someone else already has.

Use the FAQ and Guides forums to your advantage. I don't want to have to tell you to read them!

#7 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 03:05 PM

Maybe you should add a notice about this message when someone attempts to set the buffer to max.
You shouldn't lower the max value! 512 is OK.
Setting as much buffer as possible (especially if there is a lot of RAM) is good. You already know that.

#8 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 08:28 PM

UPDATE

I've just tried 511MB and it works (well... for reading*). I really don't understand what could be wrong with 1 megabyte more buffer.

*EDIT: I discovered that, after reading a disc, I can't write one. The same message appears. If I close and re-open the program, I can write to a CD using 511MB buffer.
Something must be wrong with ImgBurn's memory flushing.

Edited by Cube 8, 09 August 2009 - 08:35 PM.


#9 LIGHTNING UK!

LIGHTNING UK!

    Author of ImgBurn

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 09 August 2009 - 08:45 PM

I allocate and release correctly, if fragmentation causes the function to fail then that's down to the memory manager - and of course that's not my work.
Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

Before asking questions, search the forum to see if someone else already has.

Use the FAQ and Guides forums to your advantage. I don't want to have to tell you to read them!

#10 Cube 8

Cube 8

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece

Posted 09 August 2009 - 09:02 PM

After some quick experimentation with the options inside I/O tab, I managed to make it work with max buffer setting.
I changed the interface setting from SPTI to Patin-Couffin.
I don't know what actual difference it makes (maybe it's just a coincidence), but I don't get this annoying message any more.

Edited by Cube 8, 09 August 2009 - 09:06 PM.


#11 Neil Wilkes

Neil Wilkes

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:High Resolution Surround Sound
    All things Musical
    DVD-Audio/Video & BluRay Authoring

Posted 28 July 2010 - 07:36 AM

I just got hit with this one for the first time too.
Buffers - as per the poster here - were at max.
Thing is, this time it hit me when trying to write from a folder.
I have been using buffers at max since, oh, forever - yet this is the very first time I have run into this issue.
Solved it by dropping buffers back to 256.

I agree with Cube 8 though - it is very irritating. It has to be a bug, because I just booted the system.
Nothing running really in the background, I have 2Gb of RAM in this.
Why does it happen now, when writing from a folder, when it will happily write an image to DL with buffers at max?

#12 LIGHTNING UK!

LIGHTNING UK!

    Author of ImgBurn

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,297 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 28 July 2010 - 08:55 AM

'Build' involves 2 buffers, 'Write' just uses the one.

An API command failing is not my problem, nor can I do anything about it - I mentioned this at the top of the thread and things haven't changed.

I have no idea why it would work sometimes and not others, I didn't code the OS or the memory manager.
Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

Before asking questions, search the forum to see if someone else already has.

Use the FAQ and Guides forums to your advantage. I don't want to have to tell you to read them!

#13 Neil Wilkes

Neil Wilkes

    ISF Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:High Resolution Surround Sound
    All things Musical
    DVD-Audio/Video & BluRay Authoring

Posted 28 July 2010 - 11:18 AM

I'm not saying it's anything you can do anything about - it looks like the OS for some reason.
It is very odd though - I have around 1.7Gb free RAM after initial boot, and the default Virtual memory settings have been altered to suit DAW use.
5Gb DVD image, scads of RAM, scads of HDD space

All very odd.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users