Re: maximum .net process can use

Thanks for you input. Yes, I realized that my page file size was low too, I
was surprised that Win2000 didn't automatically change the page file size to
take advantage of the max page file size set. Occasionally my page swap
rate jumped up to 40-50/sec. I'm still wondering about the max size Windows
can utilize to serve a resource intensive process, a few things I found:
1) On Win2000, max page file is 4G so 4G physical max then.
2) On XP, there isn't limitation - I attempted to set it up to 12G and it
allowed me (I asked me to reboot and I haven't got a chance to do that
though). Does anyone know the limit? Assume that I have $ to max out XP
capability to avoid those page swaps.

-thinh


"Willy Denoyette [MVP]" <willy.denoyette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uwMYnSFHGHA.528@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Zen" <zen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uRKqXqEHGHA.2012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |I used taskmanager that came with window to look at the memory usage
> info.
> |
> | Would it help if I add another G or 2 to the server?
>
>
> No, it won't help you at all, unless you have a high paging rate.
>
> Apparently each process
> | can use only up to 2G max of memory, but other items including the OS
> itself
> | would occupy a big junk of total memory leaving less memory for the
> asp.net.
> | I don't know the answer the question to that because the following 2
> items
> | contradicting to each other:
> | 1) With virtual memory system and enough harddisk space, the asp.net
> process
> | is already virtually working with 2G of memory, so adding physical
> memory
> | would only speed up (less swapping with page faults) but woudn't help
> | reducing OOM exception likelihood. My max page file size on harddisk is
> | 1.5G.
>
> Did you measure the paging rate? Your paging file is too small anyway, it
> should be larger than physical memory, and it should be large enough to
> hold
> all 'dirty' datapages of the total of all processes. That means that the
> OS
> can never allocate more data segments (as the GC does) than the size of
> the
> paging file, the system will OOM at allocation time when it's not able to
> back-up the dirty pages to the paging file.
>
>
>
>
> | 2) However, when I moved from 1G to 2G physical memory, the system no
> longer
> | ran into OOM as often as before. With 1G, it could never load all my
> data
> | into memory for processing without seeing OOMs. Apparently adding more
> | physical memory did help.
> |
>
> Yes, now I see why your page file is 1.5GB only, you didn't change it's
> size
> wen you moved from 1GB to 2GB.
>
> | To rephrase my original question, if I can afford any memory size I
> want,
> | which amount would be the max I can benefit from? There must be a
> stopping
> | point somewhere. I thought it was 2G but I could be wrong and hoping
> that
> | I'm wrong because making my code to work with smaller memory amount
> would
> be
> | very costly.
> |
>
> First thing to do is increase your page file size (make it 3GB), and watch
> your paging consumption and the paging rate using perfmon (don't use
> taskman
> for this). If you still incur OOM's, profile your application and check
> your
> allocation patterns carefully, watch for containers like ArrayList, they
> grow exponentially and the are a pain in the a** when they become larger
> than 85KB. Watch your memory fragmentation level when profiling or
> debugging. Memory fragmentation cannot be solved by adding memory.
> Watch your unmanaged memory counters and your unmanaged resources, make
> sure
> you are disposing correctly.
> You should ONLY add RAM when the paging rate is realy too high and becomes
> a
> performance bottleneck. Don't extend above 3GB if you can it's a waste of
> money on 32 bit OS.
>
>
> Willy.
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: maximum .net process can use
    ... > No, it won't help you at all, unless you have a high paging rate. ... > | can use only up to 2G max of memory, but other items including the OS ... Your paging file is too small anyway, ... > First thing to do is increase your page file size, and watch ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: maximum .net process can use
    ... > |> No, it won't help you at all, unless you have a high paging rate. ... > |> should be larger than physical memory, and it should be large enough ... > |> allocation patterns carefully, watch for containers like ArrayList, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Ram use
    ... especially on a demand paged virtual memory system like Linux. ... vmstat is a crude, but useful tool to measure this sort of ... the desktop in a typical fashion and see what the paging rate looks like ... when the system does a lot of I/O. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: maximum .net process can use
    ... The question YOU have to answer is - how large is this chunk of memory you ... are trying to allocate, note I say "chunk" of memory because I don't know ... |> No, it won't help you at all, unless you have a high paging rate. ... Your paging file is too small anyway, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: maximum .net process can use
    ... |I used taskmanager that came with window to look at the memory usage info. ... No, it won't help you at all, unless you have a high paging rate. ... Your paging file is too small anyway, ... First thing to do is increase your page file size, and watch ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
Loading