Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?
From: perris (perris.1j7e62_at_no-mx.forum.osnn.net)
Date: 01/21/05
- Next message: perris: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Previous message: Graham Hughes: "Re: Windows XP Media Center 2005 questions..."
- In reply to: Ron Martell: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Next in thread: Alex Nichol: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:32:48 -0600
hard to be more incorrect then your interpretation of the pagefile Ron
we can go back and forth with this and I"m not going to on every post
and every statement, I'll just give you source for a few of your
biggest mistakes
our opinions will be left for readers to weigh
quote;
Modified memory pages are not backed up
anywhere, except when done so by the program. And I know of no
application program or Windows component which does this.
unquote
wow, very wrong..it's impossible for the program to back modified pages
for the memory manager, the memory manager does that
I am absolutely correct, the pagefile is where modified pages are
backed...that's the major purpose of the pagefile, for backing
modified, private writable pages
for a more official version, the mskb;
Windows NT requires "backing storage" for everything it keeps in RAM.
If Windows NT requires more space in RAM, it must be able to swap out
code and data to either the paging file or the original executable
file.
you don't believe the kernel team?, or you think the info is too
sparse?
alright then, Mark Russinovich
“When a process allocates a piece of private virtual memory (memory not
backed by an image or data file on disk, which is considered sharable
memory), the system charges the allocation against the commit limit.
The commit limit is the sum of most of physical memory and all paging
files. In the background the system will write these pages out to the
paging file if a paging file exists and there is space in the paging
file. "
backing storage is absolutely necessary for the memory manager to
concider...if it's not there, then Ron, where will a modified page get
released to if it's the best candidate?
now, the rest of your entire post is laden with incorrect statements
and they are all addressed in my previous post, however I do have to
point out one more thing
you find it hard to believe that a person needs 2 gigs of memory to run
without backing store?
go to task manager, add up all the programs memory useage...funny you
think a modern os would need less
when you say, "task manager is including unused...", well Ron, that's
the very point, and that's what the memory manager does, it brings out
unused and in used portions of data...simple
and finally, no, the size of the pagefile IS NOT inversely proportional
to the amount of memory, ...as I quoted from Mark, the pagefile is an
area on the disc to provide backing store for private writable address
space...the more memory a computer has in use, the more private
writable bytes.
obvious
Ron Martell Wrote:
> perris <perris.1j6i83@no-mx.forum.osnn.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >incorrect, just about your entire response to my post
>
> No. It is your opinions about how memory management works in Windows
> that are incorrect.
>
> >
> >quote;
> >
> >The pagefile in Windows XP is used for the following specific
> >functions in Windows XP:
> >
> >1. To compensate for the lack of sufficient physical RAM in the
> >computer to meet the total memory load requirements. unquote
> >
> >incorrect, the pagefile is only to provide backing store for modified
> >pages so they can be considered by the memory manager
> >
>
> That is totally incorrect. Modified memory pages are not backed up
> anywhere, except when done so by the progam. And I know of no
> application program or Windows component which does this.
>
>
> >everything that's not modified gets backed to the hardrive from
> whence
> >it came...the exe, dll, whatever
>
>
> That is also incorrect. Items loaded from the hard drive which have
> not been modified have no need for backup because the original is
> still there intact on the hard drive.
>
> >
> >you would need over 2 gigs to run xp without backing store, and
> >everything in memory needs a place, it's OWN place on the hardrive so
> >the memory manager will be able to conceder it in the memory
> management
> >model
>
> That does not make sense.
>
> >
> >as far as memory dumps, ya, that's a good purpose of it too...you do
> >have that one right
> >
> >you also got the following right;
> >
> >quote;
> >
> >The
> >memory manager decides which items will be in RAM and which will be
> in
> >the pagefile on a dynamic basis and swaps them back and forth as
> >requirements change. unquote
> >
> >memory is addressed first and allocated second, the memory manager
> >needs an area to perform these "swaps" you're speaking about, the
> >"swap" space is not shared
>
> The memory manager has its own area in RAM which is specifically
> marked as not to be paged out.
>
>
> >
> >and your claim
> >
> >quote
> >
> >
> >For meeting the memory address requirements of the unused portion of
> >memory allocation requests all that is requires is that the potential
> >to enlarge the pagefile exist. It does not have to actually be
> >enlarged for these items. The unused portions of requested memory
> >can easily aggregate to several hundred megabytes even on a lightly
> >used system. For example on my own system these items currently
> total
> >208 mb. Task Monitor tells me that the Page File Usage is 308 mb
> >while another utility tells me that there is only 94 mb of active
> >memory content residing in the page file. And the actual size of the
> >pagefile is 160 mb, which is the minimum that I have set for it.
> >
> >unquote
> >
> >rediculous...you think that just because only 94 mbs of information
> is
> >actually in the pagefile, that's all that the memory manager is
> >charging to it?
> >
>
> Yup. All there is is all there is.
>
> >obsurd...taskmanager is exactly correct in what is charged to the
> >pagefile, yet you want to circumvent this strategy.
>
> Taskmanager is including the *unused* portions of requested memory in
> the pagefile count because that is where these unused addresses have
> been mapped to.
>
> >
> >the kernel team IS EXTREMELY happy with the memory management model
> of
> >the NT kernel, and yes, they do know how much memory is available on
> >modern systems
> >
> >they've continued to raise, not lower the recommendations for
> pagefile,
> >the continue their recommendations in server 2003, and in longhorn
> >
> >how you can defend circumventing the recommendation of the kernel
> team
> >when as a fact you KNOW there is no performance to gain for the
> effort,
> >and wuite a bit to loose for some users, (as the very poster of this
> >thread clearly demonstrates) is irresponsible in every sense
>
> What recommendations of the Kernel team are you talking about? Where
> are they published? The 1.5 times RAM figure was arrived at for two
> reasons:
> 1. to satisfy the marketing types, who wanted a simplistic value even
> if it was largely bogus.
> 2. to ensure tha the pagefile was always big enough to hold a complete
> memory dump in the event of a system failure class error. The actual
> truth is that the complete memory dump is usable in something like
> ..0000000000000000001% of the system failure memory errors that occur.
> For the overwhelming majority of these errors the STOP code is fully
> adequate for diagnosing the problem, and for the remainder the 64kb
> small memory dump is sufficient. The complete memory dump was
> instituted as an aid for testing and development and for a few large
> corporate and government users where this information might actually
> be used on occasion.
>
>
> >
> >whether or not YOU put your memory under pressure doesn't mean I
> >don't, or my customers, or the people that work for me, and those
> that
> >mess with these machines because of the irresponsible papers that
> >"recommend" lowering the default for absolutely NO reason whatsoever
> >
> >in case you didn't know it, Microsoft even wrote hacks for users to
> >overcome the 4 gig threshold for page files
>
>
> The fundamental basic fact regarding the pagefile is that the size
> requirements are *inversely* related to the amount of RAM.
>
> More RAM means less pagefile and less RAM means more pagfile.
>
> RAM plus pagefile equals a constant value for any given system
> provided all other factors (application and data file load in
> particular) are held constant.
>
> Any formula that relates pagefile size to some multiple of the amount
> of RAM only proves that the author of that formula does not understand
> how memory management works.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
-- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=50124
- Next message: perris: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Previous message: Graham Hughes: "Re: Windows XP Media Center 2005 questions..."
- In reply to: Ron Martell: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Next in thread: Alex Nichol: "Re: Why does XP reset the size of my virtual memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
