1GB of RAM, isnt it enough?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Najm
  • Start date Start date
N

Najm

Hi,
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?
Thanks
 
Najm said:
Hi,
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV.
I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough
to
handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?
Thanks

It is not recommended to turn off the page file, I would just let the
system mange pagefile.
 
Please review the following:

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]

How can I optimize the Windows 2000/XP/2003 virtual memory (Pagefile)?
http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| Hi,
| I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
| decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
| handle the operation.
| I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
| up.
| Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?
| Thanks
 
Najm said:
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz
PIV. I decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram
is enough to handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen
popped up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than
enough? Thanks

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
 
Najm said:
Hi,
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?
Thanks

Even though it's true the more RAM you have the less page file is
needed, this does not mean that XP will not want to have a page file no
matter how much RAM you have. It just won't be used much.
 
Hi,

Yes, even with a ton of ram, many functions will look for and expect the
virtual memory. Do not disable it, but rather leave it with a minimal
initial size (never place a maximum).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
 
It always amazes me to see the number of people who will
mess with stuff that they do not understand . . . just
leave virtual memory alone !

If you insist on messing with things you don't understand,
at least do a little research first before you screw
something up so badly that you can't fix it.

Would you yank the air conditioner out of your car if you
lived in Fairbanks, Alaska ?
 
In
Najm said:
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a
2.8GHz
PIV. I decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think
the ram
is enough to handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory
screen
popped up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more
than
enough? Thanks


Yes. Turning off the page file can never help you, and usually
hurts you.

You're thinking of the page file as an enemy to be gotten rid of
if you don't need it. That is *not* the case. Having a page file
available even if you don't need one can't hurt you.

My checking account has a feature whereby if I overdraw my
account, the bank automatically lends me the money needed to
cover the check. I've never needed to use this overdraft
protection, but having it available has never hurt me in the
slightest. The page file is very similar.
 
Najm said:
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
handle the operation.

You thought incorrectly.
 
Ken said:
My checking account has a feature whereby if I overdraw my
account, the bank automatically lends me the money needed to
cover the check. I've never needed to use this overdraft

Grin. I remember when that feature first appeared. It was called
"overdraft checking".
Back in the early 80s.
 
Najm said:
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?

Yes. And if you have a page file, it can be used as a potential place
for all the pages that programs ask to have allocated but never use
(this may easily be hundreds of MB). Without a page file, those will
just lock out that amount of RAM. Read up at
www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
 
xp is a virtual memory operating system and there is nothing you could
do about that except crack the os and recompile the kernel
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.
All memory seen under the NT family of OS's is virtual memory,
(Processes access memory through their virtual memory address space)
there is no way to address RAM directly!!
This is true but you can effectively reference RAM directly by creating an
appropriate set of page table entries which happens if there is no paging
file.
open taskmanager, and count all the memory your processes are
calling...this adds up to more then your gig of memory

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.

Before you jump all over me, I have written supercomputer operating systems
(including virtual memory systems - and their pagers) that researchers have
used to substantially advance the US aeronautics and space program and I
know what can be done. And yes, supercomputers these days run UNIX and No,
I didn't write Unix but this has not always been so (I'm a long retired
guy.) Unix is used, not because it is better, but because it is MUCH
cheaper than writing new systems. Also, even with Unix, new kernels have
to be written for different system architectures.
for the most part, evreyone on this thread who's told you to let xp
manage your virutal memory is giving you the best advice

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 its
size. Just make sure it is as large as Windows will ever want to make it
and then let Windows use it how it will.

If you are writing an app that heavily utilizes uses a VERY large amount of
address space (virtual memory) then you MIGHT need to know how the XP
paging algorithm works. (The rules it uses to decide which pages to move
into and out of real memory.) Given any paging algorithm, I can write an
application for which that algorithm will be the worst possible algorithm
and the machine's computational speed will slow to much less than 1/1000th
its "normal" speed because each reference to memory will be for an address
that is in the pagefile and not in RAM. Thus an interrupt will occur, the
execution mode will change to ring 0, kernel will begin executing and will
have to, on average, move at least two pages between physical RAM and the
pagefile, do all of the associated book keeping, update the page table
(used by the hardware to map physical addresses to virtual addresses) and
switch back to the application.
..anyone
elsewhere or anywhere who's told you to remove or cripple you pagefile
in any fasion is giving you advice that can't help, and can hurt.
Bottom line - Yep - you're right
 
I have been running XP pro with 768megs of ram/no pagefile and the ONLY
issue I have run into is XP Office when dealing with copy and paste. I
get a message about closing out some apps for that function to work.
Put the pagefile back and the issue goes away.

Yes you can run without a pagefile successfully DEPENDING on what you
are running. My system has been extremely stable without running a
pagefile but then I am not running autocad.

Should you waste a gig and a half on a pagefile [recommended by MS of
1.5x ram]? Certainly not! Start out with 256 min and max and monitor
the committ charge to see if you even use all of that. Increase or
decrease as the monitoring results dictate. I refer to this technique
as "right sizing" the pagefile.

One issue not mentioned in any of these posts is you getting the low VM
message. Is there a particular program loading that gives you this or
just coming up gives you this message?

You can have two issues that I know of that can give you this message.
Removing 'everyone' from disk/folder access or if your system is loaded
with spyware that is so busy as to consume your system resources.

BTW I was at a Citrix training in Seattle last week which included a
couple of exMS programmers. I asked them in what incriments the
pagefile.sys file is written to and they both said 64kb. This means
4kb is NOT a optimal cluster size for the pagefile.sys file.
 
What do you have against VM?

Maaybe read up on what it really is and how it is used.
 
Might be worthwhile for some to download TaskInfo 2003 and see how memory is
allocated for each task.
 
Hi,
I have 1 GB of RAM in my system and im running winXP Pro on a 2.8GHz PIV. I
decided to remove virtual memory off (0 mb) as i think the ram is enough to
handle the operation.
I was surprised that the system ran slow and the low memory screen popped
up.
Is one obliged to use virtual memory even if the Ram is more than enough?
Thanks

Hi:

Read this page.
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Happy trails,

Fleabus ..............

Please remove the X from my address to e-mail me.
 
Back
Top