Memory Leak Constantly!..

[DanS]

<snip>

AFAICT the difference of opinion centres on the cost of freeing up
memory when all memory that would otherwise be unused has been
speculatively filled with cached data. If the cached data is not
'dirty' - which SuperFetch stuff should be - the cache content can be
simply discarded; there is no need to write it back to disk. The cost
involved is thus only that of clearing some entries from whatever
data structure keeps track of the cache usage.

Of course, you are forgetting, or failing to mention, the cost of pre-
loading applications into cache that are not used from cache before
something else needs the memory and it gets dumped.

I did a quick look for a Superfetch whitepaper, but was unable to find
one. There are too many detailed questions to be answered, and a
whitepaper would only be the way. For instance, the app that was loaded
and dumped (without be used), is this then re-loaded later on in the
session ? (Probably to be dumped again w/o using it.)

 

[Stephan Rose]

That is the promise but not the reality. I use two large applications
constantly, Photoshop and Sony's Vegas. Neither load instantly. My
guess is Vista is first removing big chunks of what is currently in
RAM to make room for them. So so-called super-fetch seems more hype
than fact. Ditto for Agent, my news reader. First application I fire
up in the morning, yet it doesn't load "instantly" either and it has a
small footprint where it could using your logic always be in RAM. It
obviously isn't.

Well adam, I have to both agree and disagree with you and everyone else.

Both sides here are right and wrong at the exact same time.

The one side is right in saying that it doesn't take any significant
amount of time to flush the cache. Matter of fact, it doesn't even take a
millisecond. Somewhere in the microseconds is more like it. All that needs
to be done to "flush" a memory cache is to mark the relevant pages as
free. The data in cache doesn't need to be moved anywhere as it doesn't
contain any new information that needs to be written to the disk.

The only exception would be if the cache did contain non-committed data
but that is not what we are discussing here when an OS pre-loads data.

Now I *do* agree with you though adam that Vista should not be pre-loading
things at boot time what it thinks the user may use. While freeing a cache
is extremely fast, loading data INTO the cache from the hard drive is NOT!
Loading 1 gig of data into the cache actually will take a significant
amount of time. Time that has been wasted if it's not actually used.

Better yet, this is what it should be doing. Boot up and not worry about
making it take longer by loading crap into ram. Just start up...and as the
user actually *uses* their system, it can then *keep* things loaded in
memory in RAM...to avoid needing to load them again. Doing it this way, it
never loads anything unnecessary into memory.

Also, Vista should be reporting it a bit better. It should not be
reporting 95% of memory used (this could actually cause issues with
software that tracks available system memory to make decisions on how much
memory it allocates itself).

It should be reporting something along the lines of what my system
currently reports:

Memory:
33% in use by programs
66% in use as cache

Now *that* is more useful information and free memory is correctly
reported as the cached usage is not included in that.


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Adam Albright]

Yep. I'm done talking to him.

You implied I don't know what caching is. THAT is a fallacy.

Translation: You were caught making a fallacy and now it is time to
run away from another thread. That's you MO. LOL!

Fallacy: an often plausible sounding argument using false or invalid
inference to infer someone said or believes something they don't
and/or didn't say.

Sadly, a VERY COMMON fanboy tactic because everyone knows fanboys
can't argue a point worth a sh*t and without using fallacies and
strawmen they've got nothing.

 

[Adam Albright]

Of course.

Mike

Oh I see... you leave it to us to figure what you meant to say and
refuse to be held accountable for what you actually said.

Another fanboy tactic.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Im currently running a dual-boot system on my Sony Vaio VGN-N2s1w.. im having
major problems with an untraceable memory leak with Vista. I have checked all
files on the OS and none of them seem to be increasing in size yet im still
loosing memory even by the hour!. I havnt been running any updates etc or
anything that could potentially take up any memory yet it still seems to be
disapearing. PLease help...

Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a
counterproductive desire. Vista, and other recent versions of Windows,
are designed to use all, or nearly all, of your memory, all the time,
and that's good not bad. Free memory is wasted memory. You paid for it
all and shouldn't want to see any of it wasted.

Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the
time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that
part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In
this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

 

[Mike]

Oh I see... you leave it to us to figure what you meant to say and
refuse to be held accountable for what you actually said.

WTF are you babbling about now? I just confirmed my meaning to someone
who clearly misunderstood.

Mike

 

[Mike]

You implied I don't know what caching is. THAT is a fallacy.

Troll troll troll your boat......

Mike

 

[Mike]

I did a quick look for a Superfetch whitepaper, but was unable to find
one. There are too many detailed questions to be answered, and a
whitepaper would only be the way. For instance, the app that was loaded
and dumped (without be used), is this then re-loaded later on in the
session ? (Probably to be dumped again w/o using it.)

No, it's adaptive. It only pre-loads stuff you commonly use. If you
don't use something very often, chances are it won't be pre-loaded.

Of course, the more RAM you have, the more stuff will get pre-loaded.

Mike

 

[Adam Albright]

"Caching is a time-tested method for speeding up computers." How is that a
fallacy?
"We've had software disk caches, hardware disk caches and CPU caches for
years." How is that a fallacy?

You just can not admit when you are wrong.

The statement "Caching is a time-tested method for speeding up
computers" isn't the fallacy, it was Mike trying to suggest that I
don't know what caching means. That IS the fallacy.

If I'm going too fast for you, let me know.

The real reason some people don't like me is I hold their feet to the
fire when they make some unsupported statement. It tends to piss them
off when I prove they were deliberately misstating things.

 

[Adam Albright]

Agreed he is just a fool.

Well this "fool" kicks fanboy butt daily. LOL!

 

[Adam Albright]

WTF are you babbling about now? I just confirmed my meaning to someone
who clearly misunderstood.

The term you're looking for is CYA for cover your ass. You should
learn to write more clearly, then you won't have to back pedal all the
time.

 

[Adam Albright]

Troll troll troll your boat......

You got caught red-handed. I don't expect you to admit it since you
never do.

 

[Mike]

Better yet, this is what it should be doing. Boot up and not worry about
making it take longer by loading crap into ram. Just start up...and as the
user actually *uses* their system, it can then *keep* things loaded in
memory in RAM...to avoid needing to load them again. Doing it this way, it
never loads anything unnecessary into memory.

This is how it works. It doesn't just sit there and grind the disk on
each boot, loading things that you may never use. It's a low priority
background task.

Seriously, you and others need to do some research on this subject.

Mike

 

[Vista User]

Well this "fool" kicks fanboy butt daily. LOL!

No you just look like the fool that you are. You can't even admit when your
wrong.

 

[Adam Albright]

No, it's adaptive. It only pre-loads stuff you commonly use. If you
don't use something very often, chances are it won't be pre-loaded.

Of course, the more RAM you have, the more stuff will get pre-loaded.

Mike

What zooms over your head is pre loading which amounts to guess work
on part of the OS based on past usage often wastes more time than
saving it UNLESS you have very specific routines where you limit
yourself to doing the same old, same old, in the same way, day after
day. How many people you know that actually work that way?

No benefit is arrived from Vista needing to replace a cache filled
with stuff it thought you would use with stuff you ACTUALLY decided to
use no matter how many times you try to dance around that fact.

Trying to reason with people like you is pointless since you never
listen to what the other guy actually said, you prefer to makeup stuff
and pretend the other guy said or believes something else. Which is
why I said you constantly try to inject some boneheaded fallacy or
build a strawman, because that is what you always do. That isn't
debating or having a discussion, it is being disingenuous.

 

[Vista User]

You got caught red-handed. I don't expect you to admit it since you
never do.

Mike ignore Adam this is his usual tactic when he is proven wrong.

 

[Adam Albright]

Well adam, I have to both agree and disagree with you and everyone else.

Both sides here are right and wrong at the exact same time.

That's the reality in most cases.

Now I *do* agree with you though adam that Vista should not be pre-loading
things at boot time what it thinks the user may use. While freeing a cache
is extremely fast, loading data INTO the cache from the hard drive is NOT!
Loading 1 gig of data into the cache actually will take a significant
amount of time. Time that has been wasted if it's not actually used.

My point with using huge video source files. For example I may work on
the same project for weeks. If Vista "thinks" this guy is editing a
video, I'm going to crawl out on a limb and assume Vista will load in
the file opened last when in fact if I started a new project with a
new source file then the process of kicking out the old and bringing
in the new that Vista mistakenly dragged into the cache isn't helping,
it fact it hurts from a time standpoint.

I'm not even sure Vista preloads data frequently used. Even if it only
preloads applications used frequently that again makes an assumption
those applications will always be used. Wrong again. Because video
editing can be a very complex undertaking you can't always use the
same applications and need to use a second and third, maybe more. So
even if Vista is limited to preloading only applications it can and
often does guess wrong as to what I want to use which again just
increases time, not reduce the time it takes to get working.

 

[Vista User]

That's the reality in most cases.


My point with using huge video source files. For example I may work on
the same project for weeks. If Vista "thinks" this guy is editing a
video, I'm going to crawl out on a limb and assume Vista will load in
the file opened last when in fact if I started a new project with a
new source file then the process of kicking out the old and bringing
in the new that Vista mistakenly dragged into the cache isn't helping,
it fact it hurts from a time standpoint.

I'm not even sure Vista preloads data frequently used. Even if it only
preloads applications used frequently that again makes an assumption
those applications will always be used. Wrong again. Because video
editing can be a very complex undertaking you can't always use the
same applications and need to use a second and third, maybe more. So
even if Vista is limited to preloading only applications it can and
often does guess wrong as to what I want to use which again just
increases time, not reduce the time it takes to get working.

Turn it off and see what happens. You can do it through typing, in "RUN"
services.msc and scroll down to superfetch.

 

[Mike]

Wanting to minimize the amount of memory Windows uses is a
counterproductive desire. Vista, and other recent versions of Windows,
are designed to use all, or nearly all, of your memory, all the time,
and that's good not bad. Free memory is wasted memory. You paid for it
all and shouldn't want to see any of it wasted.

Windows works hard to find a use for all the memory you have all the
time. For example if your apps don't need some of it, it will use that
part for caching, then give it back when your apps later need it. In
this way Windows keeps all your memory working for you all the time.

Exactly, and well put. These people who think that this is a bad idea
need to do some research on this topic. It has been analyzed and
tested to death, and been found to work and actually speed the loading
of apps.

Hint: RAM is not a "resource", it is cache and should be used as such.
IOW, it should be full at all times, not left empty "waiting for the
user to do something with it".

Mike

 

[Frazer Jolly Goodfellow]

Of course, you are forgetting, or failing to mention, the cost
of pre- loading applications into cache that are not used from
cache before something else needs the memory and it gets dumped.

I deliberately left it out because it wasn't of direct relevance to
the point under discussion. AIUI the pre-loading activity takes
place at low priority, hence not impacting the 'user experience'
because it is soaking up spare cpu and disk i/o capacity.

Intuitively, maximising caching in RAM seems a no-brainer. The pre-
emptive bit, I'm less sure about. It would be interesting to be
able to switch the features on/off to see if there's a worthwhile,
real-world benefit.

I did a quick look for a Superfetch whitepaper, but was unable
to find one. There are too many detailed questions to be
answered, and a whitepaper would only be the way. For instance,
the app that was loaded and dumped (without be used), is this
then re-loaded later on in the session ? (Probably to be dumped
again w/o using it.)

I haven't found anything in-depth either as yet, just marketecture
stuff like this:
<http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/29/windows-vista-
superfetch-readyboost.aspx>

As for ReadyBoost... from what I've read the hardware performance
is lagging...