Re: Virtual memory problem? - PF usage grows, not freed when apps

FL Guy wrote: 

"Gerry Cornell" wrote:


I  would download and install the patch.

With regard to virtual memory remove the maximum so that there is no maximum.


OK, I have installed the patch, and updated the VM settings.

(For now at least, I set the max to 3 GB - I wasn't comfortable with NO limit :-). I also increased the minimum to 1.5 GB, given that this system has 'only' 512 of physical RAM at this point, and I tend to run 4 or 5 apps simulataneously + WIN XP.)

I will now run without rebooting for a a few days (or until the problem resurfaces :-), and see if the problem recurs. I'll post again if it does. If it doesn't happen again, I'll try to remember to post an update in a few days just to confirm

Thanks very much for the suggestions (and questions :-).

By the way, sorry to say that I have no idea what "FCA" stands for. If you don't mind my asking do you work for (or contracted by) Microsoft? 

regards,
Gregg

Ok, this is something I am interested in too.

But! first of all some background: a 4000+ AMD thingy, a Gig of RAM, 4 by 250 Gig SATAs.

I run Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator and these, of course, have their own dedicated temporary memory management structure.

I used to have PF on a separate platter but now am trying this arrangement for a week or so:
- PF on C: system managed by Windows (XP Pro SP2 & all recent updates)
- another PF on F: set to Max = Min = 1533MB (as recommended by Windows for PF on C:)

I've recently been using Doug's PF Usage monitor utility and the previous arrangement of one PF set to Max = Min = 2.5 Gig to compliment empirical observations about how PF arrangement performs.

Previous arrangement showed 55 MB PF implying more RAM required according to the utility.

This neer arrangement (system managed PF of C:, Max = Min = 1533 MB on F:) is returning stuff like 28 MB, 25 MB of C: and F: page files.

At startup today it showed PFU at 8 MB and 12 MB on C: and F:

Conclusion?
It's too early to tell but the system is far zippier than previous arrangement and looks good.

Even rotations in Photoshop seem to zip suggesting (at this stage) that photoshop is managing well where the system directs temporary management to PF on C: or F: (or both?) as required

Any more observers out there with tales to tell?
.

Loading