Cannot Increase Virtual Memory In Custom Setting

[Guest]

Hello:

I am running Windows XP Professional on a Pentium 3 @ 933 MHz, with 512 MB
of RAM, and a 250 GB hard drive, with 222 GB free space. I recently added
another 128 MB of RAM into my machine, to increase my total RAM from 384 MB
to 512 MB. Then, I wanted to update my virtual memory settings, to set my
initial and maximum virtual memory settings to 800 MB for both. Currently,
the machine is recommending and has set the virtual memory to 766 MB. I can
modify the setting parameters and it records my changes in the above window
labeled, "Paging File Size." However, when I reboot the machine and bring it
back up, I would expect the pagefile.sys settings to have taken affect.
However, they do not. While my preferred settings of 800 MB for both initial
and maximum setting are still recorded, the pagefile.sys, itself, is still
listed as 766 MB.

Some additional parameters: I am using an administrator account and have
proper permission (FULL CONTROL) over the pagefile.sys file. I have also
noticed that after making the changes and nothing happens after a reboot, if
I boot into SAFE MODE, the changes take affect and the pagefile.sys increases
to 800 MB. But, when I reboot and go back into "regular mode," the
pagefile.sys decreases back to 766 MB. I will say that after doing this, at
least once, the pagefile.sys file did increase to 800 MB, under a "regular"
Windows XP boot, perhaps immediately after booting into SAFE MODE. But,
after I rebooted, again, and came back into "regular mode," without even
going near the virtual memory setting, the pagefile.sys file had decreased
back to 766 MB.

Finally, I have never had a problem with modifying the pagefile.sys file
before and I have defragged this new hard disk, as well, before attempting to
make this change. I am running Lavasoft's Ad-Aware, Spybot, and Symantec
AntiVirus Corporate Edition and attempted these changes, both with this
applications running and with all of them deactivated...there were no
changes. I would appreciate anyone's assistance with this issue. Thank you.

--Dylan

 

[Guest]

if im not mistaken, windows will set the virtual memory to 1 1/2 times actual
physical memory...hence the 766mb setting. with the price of ram so low why
not upgrade the 128mb sticks to 256s? increase your physical memory and
decrease the virtual memory for a huge performance boost. 512mb is really low
for xp pro.

 

[Zilbandy]

Then, I wanted to update my virtual memory settings, to set my
initial and maximum virtual memory settings to 800 MB for both.

To my understanding, playing with virtual memory may have had some
benefits with early windows, but not with later versions, and xp is
definitely a later version. Why do you feel it necessary to second
guess Windows and change the settings it has selected?

 

[Guest]

Hello, Tinman77865:

Unfortunately, I am running on an older motherboard that is only capable of
reading 512 MB of RAM. But, even when I was running with 384 MB of RAM, my
computer was fairly peppy. Now, with 512 MB of RAM, it is running even
better; however, I think it is a little slower than what it should be, with
the virtual memory setting not modifying to 800 MB for both initial and
maximum setting, under the custom settings.

Thanks for your response and for any assistance you may be able to provide.

--Dylan

 

[Guest]

Hello, Zilbandy:

Thank you for your response. Yes, Windows XP is the latest version of
windows and is much, much, much better than older versions of Windows. But,
even with that, Windows XP does seem to benefit by customizing the virtual
memory settings, by adjusting the initial and maximum settings to identical
numerical values, at a size slightly larger than Windows XP suggests. I have
usually experienced performance increases and have ridden my users of
annoying virtual memory messages, by using this strategy. While my system is
running fairly well, during that one time that the size actually adjusted,
under a "regular" boot (not booting into "SAFE MODE"), I noticed a larger
increase in system efficiency and speed. Plus, add to it that it does not
make sense that this setting doesn't adjust to what I have set it to be and
that it did, but, only that one time. My curiosity and interest is keeping
me asking the question, "WHY?"

Again, thank you for your assistance and for any suggestions you may be able
to provide.

--Dylan

 

[Guest]

I have great I have figured out the issue and have solved the problem.

I may have reported to you that, in an attempt to resolve the issue, I had
updated my LIVEUPDATE application for Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition.
I was running Version 2.0.39.0 and upgraded to the most recent version,
Version 3.0.0.150. Unfortunately, that did not solve the issue. Then, I
decided to reread the information regarding the Symantec Antivirus
Decomposition Buffer Overflow Patch. I had not upgraded my Symantec client
because I was running Version 9.0.2.1000 and it was not vulnerable to the
buffer overflow. So, I thought I was safe, for now, to continue running this
version. But, I decided to do additional research about the pagefile.sys
issue, within Symantec's website, and up popped up Document ID:
2004042913251448, entitled, "Paging File Size Changes After Installing
Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.0 On Windows XP." And, within that
article was our answer to our perplexing question. Here is what the article
said:

=====================================================

Situation:

You installed Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.0 on a Windows® XP
computer that has a fixed-size paging file. The size that the paging file is
set to is larger than the minimum size Windows recommends. After installing
Symantec AntiVirus, you find that the size is set to the minimum size that
Windows recommends.

Solution:

This problem is fixed in Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition 9.0.4. For
information on obtaining the latest build of Symantec AntiVirus Corporate
Edition, read How to obtain an update or an upgrade for your Symantec
corporate product.


If you cannot upgrade to Symantec AntiVirus 9.0.4, you can work around the
problem by excluding the Pagefile.sys file from the Auto-Protect scan or
changing the Auto-Protect Startup option to Symantec AntiVirus start.

To exclude the Pagefile.sys file from Auto-Protect scanning

Right-click the client or server, and then click All Tasks > Symantec
AntiVirus > Client Realtime Protection Options.
Check Exclude selected files and folders
Click Exclusions.
Click Folders, and type

C:\pagefile.sys

Click OK in each of the dialog boxes until you see the Symantec System
Center.
Restart the computer.

To change the Auto-Protect Startup option to Symantec AntiVirus start
Start Symantec AntiVirus.
Click Configure > File System Auto-Protect.
Click Advanced.
In the Startup options section, click Symantec AntiVirus start.
Restart the computer. This will set the paging file size back to the fixed
value that was previously set.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This scenario provides slightly less protection because Auto-Protect
loads later during the startup process. Use your best judgement to determine
if this setting is appropriate for your environment.

=====================================================

I looked into excluding the pagefile.sys file; however, the file was not
visible within the exclusion directory tree and I did not want to have
Symantec load later in the boot up process, though I did configure the client
to do this, to test this workaround and I can confirm that it worked for me,
allowing my custom pagefile.sys file to expand to my custom settings. So,
after I had confirmation, I uninstalled the older Symantec client and
installed the latest Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition and the latest
maintenance release and patch, Version 10.0.2.2020, as of 2/15/2006. After
installation, I am happy to report that my customized pagefile.sys file is
still registering at the expected size, that of my customization.

I hope this information helps you and may help others who may be
experiencing or may experience this perplexing and frustrating issue. While,
I cannot explain why when I had disabled the real-time protection, under the
older client, why this did not always solve the issue, I am simply ecstatic
that the issue does, now, appear to be remedied.

Good luck with your specific issues and here's hoping that this information
helps you, too.

--Dylan

 

[Ron Martell]

I have great I have figured out the issue and have solved the problem.

Thank you for posting this.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Guest]

You are most welcome, Ron. I certainly do hope that it helps. Thank you for
your kind response.

--Dylan

 

[Ron Martell]

You are most welcome, Ron. I certainly do hope that it helps. Thank you for
your kind response.

--Dylan

I have subsequently discovered that there is another Norton product
that has the same or similar behavior. That is Norton Antivirus 2004.
The relevant Symantec Knowledge Base article is 2005123011260806


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."