Re: 1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?
From: perris (perris.1jrua1_at_no-mx.forum.osnn.net)
Date: 02/01/05
- Next message: Frank Saunders, MS-MVP IE/OE: "Re: Address Toolbar not working / IE Error"
- Previous message: DKjean: "After installation of SP2 and Office 2003 - Hp 4300 Trays are igno"
- In reply to: NoSpam_at_aol.com: "Re: 1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?"
- Next in thread: SFB - KB3MM: "Re: 1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 04:32:48 -0600
> Oh really, then why is it that control
> panel/system/Advanced/Advanced/virtual memory/change allows you to set
> all
> drives to "no paging file". There will be consequences if more
> address
> space is needed than is available in RAM but the system will work. If
> virtual memory is not needed, there will be no consequences.
there are consequences, you haven't reduced paging, you've forced the
operating system to use other data to page then the best candidate
what's in the pagefile are the choices to page when those are the best
candidate, otherwise other data is paged
the pagefile is hardly the only place the operating system pages, every
dll, every .exe contribute to virtual memory backing store. you disable
the paging file, you'll increase paging to the other files, and cripple
the memory management model.
you haven't reduced paging, you've redirected it, Affect? Stacks,
heaps, program global storage, etc will all have to stay in physical
memory, NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO ANY OF IT WAS REFERENCED!!! This is very
important for any given workload and ANY amount of RAM, since the OS
would like to mark memory available when it's not been called for a
long time. You have impeded this strategy The hits? More paging or
backing of executable code, cache data maps and the like. This even
though they were referenced far more recently than for arguments sake,
the bottom most pages of a thread's stack. See? These bottom most pages
are what we want paged, not .exe's or .dlls that were recently
referenced.
> Perhaps - shows how extremely inefficient modern code has become. A
> properly written O/S could do what Windows XP does with less than 1% of
> the
> CPU and RAM resources used by XP and its applications.
nope, there are features f programs that you launch, that I certainly
need and you do not, there are features that you certainly need, but
only once in a while...it would be an incredible waste of resource to
keep this data in physical memory
> 9let xp manage the pf]Generally true but if you have enough disk space
> you will be better off to create a large contiguous pagefile and not
> allow windows to change itssize. Just make sure it is as large as
> Windows will ever want to make it and then let Windows use it how it
> will.
not a bad strategy, however, windows won't change the size of the pf
unless the commit charge approaches the commit limit, sp all you'd be
doing is eliminating a safety net tha can be there at no price...never
the less, your suggestion is not a bad choice
> (my comment about anyoen telling you to eliminate or cripple the
> pagefile to ignore)
> Bottom line - Yep - you're right[color=blue]
>
> we surely agree
-- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=53748
- Next message: Frank Saunders, MS-MVP IE/OE: "Re: Address Toolbar not working / IE Error"
- Previous message: DKjean: "After installation of SP2 and Office 2003 - Hp 4300 Trays are igno"
- In reply to: NoSpam_at_aol.com: "Re: 1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?"
- Next in thread: SFB - KB3MM: "Re: 1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
