Re: Excessive Paging

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


I had thought that TaskMan->Performance->Physical Memory->Total was the
RAM? Anyway, MyComputer reports 384.

The hard drive is 10G with about 1.5 free.

This system was running fine a couple of months ago so I don't think it
requires a hardware upgrade unless
an automatic update pushed it over the edge. It does run McAfee
antivirus which self updates
regularly and automatically updates xp as well. I've tried disabling
McAfee which doesn't seem
to have an effect.


- Ray



Gerry Cornell wrote:
Ray

How much RAM memory do you have? Right click on your My computer icon
on your Desktop and select Properties to get the information.

How large is your C drive and how much free space? In Windows Explorer
rigt click on your C drive and select Properties to get this
information.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





Ray Manning wrote:
I'm running an XP SP2 machine that has experienced an incredible
decrease in performance over the past couple months and I'm trying
to
determine why. At first I thought the hard drive might be at fault
since I was seening It would appear to me that the machine is
needlessly paging based on the PerfMon.exe Pages/sec counter and the
taskman performance numbers. Can someone verify I'm on the right
track
and possibly offer solutions?

Here's what I'm seeing:

Perfmon.exe (Pages/Sec) averages of 30-60 with a scale of 1

TaskMan: Performance

Physical Memory (K)

Total : 392,496
Available: 170,000
System Cache 240,000


Commit Charge(K)

Total 158,568
Limit 550,000
Peak 170,000

CPU usage averages about 5-20% but of course spikes at times.


What I don't understand, and perhaps it's my interpretation of the
perfmon counter, is why I have such a high page/sec rate when my
peak
commit charge isn't even half of the physical memory. Shouldn't my
commit charge be much higher before paging starts hitting 40+
pages/sec? Is page size 4k? 160k/second when I have a couple hundred
megs of physical memory available?

I did not look at these numbers before I started having performance
problems (long boot times, 5 minutes to log on, etc) so perhaps
these
are not out of line, but if not, can someone explain to me what I'm
missing in my interpretation?

Thanks,
Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 32-bit programs on Windows x64
    ... My system requires 4 GB to store its DFA pixel pattern ... THE AMOUNT OF RAM ON THE MACHINE IS COMPLETELY, TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE AVAILABLE ADDRESS ... on thinking about physical memory as being an operational parameter in any of this? ... Note that the L2 cache is ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: The Linear Address Space
    ... controller to read the data into physical memory (RAM). ... > Am I on the right track with paging? ... used as an offset into that frame. ...
    (comp.lang.asm.x86)
  • Re: Are patches eating up my memory?
    ... Patches may be eating up your hard drive space on C, but not your RAM. ... physical memory because it includes page filing. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: Added more RAM but not all is listed on My Computer > Properties
    ... the /3GB switch deals with Virtual ... doubt that it will be changed to allow for use of RAM above the 4GB ... Total Physical Memory 5,120.00 MB ... Available Virtual Memory 1.96 GB ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Added more RAM but not all is listed on My Computer > Properties
    ... Furthermore, whoever wrote that post didn't know what they were talking about, the /3GB switch deals with Virtual Address Space available to applications, it doesn't have anything to do with Physical Memory. ... Perhaps SP3 will change that but I don't know, I haven't heard reports of any changes to the XP PAE kernel with SP3 so I kind of doubt that it will be changed to allow for use of RAM above the 4GB barrier. ... Available Virtual Memory 1.96 GB ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)