4GB RAM

J

Just D.

I just added 2 more GB to the laptop and the Windows XP got 4 GB of RAM. I
think I'm missing something, but the system shows only 3.24GB of RAM with
the Physical Address Extension enabled. Maybe it's related to the video
memory which is shared on this model, also it can be related to the video
memory using its own address ranges reserved by the system. So, although I'm
not absolutely sure, I could probably explain that.

But why the system still keeps 3.5GB swap file if I turn the setting to
maintain the swap file size by the system? Anyway it's out of the physical
address range and can't be used or I simpy don't get it correctly. Windows
XP has a 4GB memory address limitation. Does anybody have a good explanation
to this phenomenon? System bug or something not documented? Should I
restrict the file size to something smaller?

Just D.
 
S

Shenan Stanley

Just said:
I just added 2 more GB to the laptop and the Windows XP got 4 GB of
RAM. I think I'm missing something, but the system shows only
3.24GB of RAM with the Physical Address Extension enabled. Maybe
it's related to the video memory which is shared on this model,
also it can be related to the video memory using its own address
ranges reserved by the system. So, although I'm not absolutely
sure, I could probably explain that.
But why the system still keeps 3.5GB swap file if I turn the
setting to maintain the swap file size by the system? Anyway it's
out of the physical address range and can't be used or I simpy
don't get it correctly. Windows XP has a 4GB memory address
limitation. Does anybody have a good explanation to this
phenomenon? System bug or something not documented? Should I
restrict the file size to something smaller?

32-bit Windows means you will not be able to fully utilize that 4GB of
memory in the way you expected. Either get a 64-bit version of Windows or
that's what you got.

And the swap file will be used no matter how much RAM you have.
 
J

JS

Just D. said:
I just added 2 more GB to the laptop and the Windows XP got 4 GB of RAM. I
think I'm missing something, but the system shows only 3.24GB of RAM with
the Physical Address Extension enabled. Maybe it's related to the video
memory which is shared on this model, also it can be related to the video
memory using its own address ranges reserved by the system. So, although
I'm not absolutely sure, I could probably explain that.

But why the system still keeps 3.5GB swap file if I turn the setting to
maintain the swap file size by the system? Anyway it's out of the physical
address range and can't be used or I simpy don't get it correctly. Windows
XP has a 4GB memory address limitation. Does anybody have a good
explanation to this phenomenon? System bug or something not documented?
Should I restrict the file size to something smaller?

Just D.

In round numbers XP can only address 4GB.
Your video card has XXXMB of ram on the card so
that limits XP to 4GB minus the cards XXXMB of memory.

In addition other hardware also takes away additional amounts of memory
(usually a small when compared to the video card)
and the remaining memory (address space) is available for
Windows XP and your applications.

So that 4th GB of ram you installed or will install goes unused.

A link to the white paper titled "Gaming Performance Analysis" by Corsair
Memory Inc. provides a good clear explanation of how a video card effects
the amount of available memory in your PC.
See: http://www.corsair.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf

Intel Chipset 4 GB System Memory Support
http://www.dcomputer.com/ProInfo/support/support/mainboard/4GB_Rev1/4GB_Rev1.pdf

Vista Users with SP1 now report how much physical memory installed on your
computer:
See: Windows Vista SP1 includes reporting of Installed System Memory (RAM):
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003

RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff:
Basic information about the Virtual Memory implementation
in 32 bit versions of Windows 2000, XP, 2003 Server etc.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
 
J

Just D.

Yes, I know about this limitation of a 32-bit XP. Then the next question -
could I install a 64-bit version of Windows XP on a 32-bit machine
supporting only 4 GB of RAM? And does it make sense to do that? I'll get
just 600-700 of usable RAM in addition to the visible under 32-bit version.
The downsize - many apps should be installed in 64-bit version, I don't have
all of them, plus computer will be working a little slower because of the
64bit address translation since it's not a 64-bit machine. Am I right?

Btw, Linux installed on the same machine works just perfectly. It's able to
run Windowx XP in a Virtual Box and it starts and works even faster than the
same version installed on the hard drive. Different file/cache system?
Maybe. I just see this difference.

Just D.
 
J

Johnny Fosse

Just D. said:
Yes, I know about this limitation of a 32-bit XP. Then the next question -
could I install a 64-bit version of Windows XP on a 32-bit machine
supporting only 4 GB of RAM?

Not only no, but HELL no. You need a 64-bit machine, doofus.
 
S

sandy58

Not only no, but HELL no.  You need a 64-bit machine, doofus.

You are a mouthy ****, Johnny Tosser. Where is YOUR helpful input,
rent-a-gob? Nothing but shit spewing here AND your other posts. Piss
off back to alt.kidz.loser, ****wit.
 
J

JS

Make more sense to install a 64-bit version
of Windows 7 as XP's 64-bit OS never really
did get much attention.

With Windows 7 64-bit OS you take full advantage
of the 4GB of memory (which is not much of a gain
over a 32 bit OS) but at least you will have a chance
to try out both futures in computing (64-bit and Win 7).

Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx

Windows 7 System Requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx


--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



Just D. said:
Yes, I know about this limitation of a 32-bit XP. Then the next question -
could I install a 64-bit version of Windows XP on a 32-bit machine
supporting only 4 GB of RAM? And does it make sense to do that? I'll get
just 600-700 of usable RAM in addition to the visible under 32-bit
version. The downsize - many apps should be installed in 64-bit version, I
don't have all of them, plus computer will be working a little slower
because of the 64bit address translation since it's not a 64-bit machine.
Am I right?

Btw, Linux installed on the same machine works just perfectly. It's able
to run Windowx XP in a Virtual Box and it starts and works even faster
than the same version installed on the hard drive. Different file/cache
system? Maybe. I just see this difference.

Just D.
 
T

Twayne

Just D. said:
I just added 2 more GB to the laptop and the Windows XP got 4 GB of
RAM. I think I'm missing something, but the system shows only 3.24GB
of RAM with the Physical Address Extension enabled. Maybe it's
related to the video memory which is shared on this model, also it
can be related to the video memory using its own address ranges
reserved by the system. So, although I'm not absolutely sure, I could
probably explain that.
But why the system still keeps 3.5GB swap file if I turn the setting
to maintain the swap file size by the system? Anyway it's out of the
physical address range and can't be used or I simpy don't get it
correctly. Windows XP has a 4GB memory address limitation. Does
anybody have a good explanation to this phenomenon? System bug or
something not documented? Should I restrict the file size to
something smaller?
Just D.

XP can ADDRESS up to 4 Gig of address space. As you surmised, several
devices are using those addresses already, such as video card and other
sundry hardware. Therefore, there are not enough ADDRESSES left to
address the whole of 4 Gig of RAM. There is often only enough left to
address an average of about 3.25 Gig of RAM, depending on the machine
and hardware used in it.
This is the actual reason many places claim that more than 3 Gig of
RAM is wasted RAM and the point of diminishing returns for memory
expansion.
MS does a p-poor job of explaining that, but it's by design.

HTH,

Twayne`
 
T

Twayne

Just D. said:
Yes, I know about this limitation of a 32-bit XP. Then the next
question - could I install a 64-bit version of Windows XP on a 32-bit
machine supporting only 4 GB of RAM? And does it make sense to do
that? I'll get just 600-700 of usable RAM in addition to the visible
under 32-bit version. The downsize - many apps should be installed in
64-bit version, I don't have all of them, plus computer will be
working a little slower because of the 64bit address translation
since it's not a 64-bit machine. Am I right?
Btw, Linux installed on the same machine works just perfectly. It's
able to run Windowx XP in a Virtual Box and it starts and works even
faster than the same version installed on the hard drive. Different
file/cache system? Maybe. I just see this difference.

Just D.

No. It won't work, and besides, it does nothing to change the ADDRESS
space of the installation you have and keeps the 4 Gig limit.
 
G

Guest

there is an interesting
correlation between
the ram and swap file/
virtual memory.

keeping in mind what the
purpose of virtual memory
is.

"the more ram you have
the less virtual memory
you need."

but you might try custom
setting the virtual memory
anyways so that you can
be sure it is at the size you
need it to be.

set it to custom,

look at the bottom half of
the vm windows and use
the initial size posted.

then for max simply multiply
1.5 time your ram which would
be 6 gigs.

frankly, you are likely to have
the majority of your processes
not swapped to the virtual mem
becauase you have enough ram
to do the job.

another method you can add
to your configuration is to
locate the virtual memory
on its own partition.

that way the vm will stay
contiguous and won't
inter mingle with your system
files.

there is also something you
might look into.

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?form=MSHOME&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=pae

lastly, I like to use a little utility
from here:

http://www.amsn.ro/


it is called the /pae

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
J

Just D.

Well, maybe it's not that stupid. Living learn. I heard that most of current
machines are able to work with 64-bit systems, but the sellers install
32-bit systems, because of missing 64-bit drivers, more expensive or missing
64-bit version of applications, etc. Basically a 64-bit machine is able to
work with a 32-bit system. So probably many current machines actually have a
64-bit ready hardware, but it was never used this way. I had one motherboard
from ASUS before it died because of overheating, and it was 64-bit CPU
ready. I installed Windows XP Pro 32-bit ans spent couple years with this
machine, assuming that this is the 32-bit one. The only one difference - the
external firewall refused to work on this processor, it started crashing
until I removed it, but no problems except this one at all for a few years.
Finally I read that if the CPU, and most current CPUs are doing that,
supports Virtualization, then it's good and can be used for some tricks. For
example, I saw the info on the Internet that Sun Virtual Box is able to
support a 64-bit Guest system with the 32-bit Host system. I didn't test it
myself, but sounds interesting. I will try that for sure since I got this VB
installed on the Linux partition and it works good with 32-bit Windows XP
Pro.
 
J

Just D.

Hello,
there is an interesting correlation between the ram and swap file/virtual
memory.
Indeed.

but you might try custom
setting the virtual memory

Whatever I set it uses around 300MB of swap with a medium to hard load now.
frankly, you are likely to have
the majority of your processes
not swapped to the virtual mem
becauase you have enough ram
to do the job.

I was playing with that many years ago. If I disable swap having enough
memory at the same time some apps simply refuse to start. For example Adobe
Photoshop Elements can't work without virtual memory. That's studid because
even if one has a lot of memory he's stuck here.
another method you can add
to your configuration is to
locate the virtual memory
on its own partition.

Almost always do when possible. It's on its own now, NTFS, 64KB clusters to
provide a better speed. Can't use a separate controller because it's laptop
with obviously limited hardware.

This set of articles is very good, thanks!
lastly, I like to use a little utility
from here:

http://www.amsn.ro/
it is called the /pae

I will try. But you personally, have you ever tried this switch (below) to
be enabled in Windows XP Pro?

"Windows Server 2003 and earlier: To enable 4GT, add the /3GB switch to the
Boot.ini file. The /3GB switch is supported on the following systems:
....
Windows XP Professional
...."

Just D.
 
D

db

well, its not easy to decipher
some of the engineering
that has gone into windows.

if the problem was an
inverse affect, then you
would have a memory
leak.

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

at best you can monitor
the vm with a utility.

not sure which ones are
out there, but may be
worth a try.

personally, I would forego
adding any more software
to a system than what is
absolutely necessary.

perhaps, you might consider
that if your windows is
functional and not crashing,
then your in an ideal
situation.

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

what you might try is to
test your ram, if you have
that little utility for the ram
I mentioned.

I would launch everything
I have to see how well the
ram performs.

then see how much vm is
used via that utility.

if you try the above, turn
off your antivirals first because
they would burden the cpu
and not the ram.

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
R

Richard

Just D. said:
Hello,


Whatever I set it uses around 300MB of swap with a medium to hard load
now.

Hi "Just D.",

Mine is currently 224MB with a light load of 27 processes. (I'm writing this
offline.) I have 1GB RAM, with a 3Ghz Pentium 4 CPU. (WinXP-pro-SP3.) Out of
the box, the pagefile was set to Minimum 1524MB, and Maximum 3048MB. The
highest that it has ever gone is about 343MB. The minimum was apparently
based on the standard rule of thumb of making your pagefile 1.5 times larger
than the physical RAM. The maximum is double the minimum, but the actual
pagefile.sys file itself was set up with the minimum size in continguous
clusters. (It is normal for "pagefile.sys" to have 1 fragment.)

I was playing with that many years ago. If I disable swap having enough
memory at the same time some apps simply refuse to start. For example
Adobe Photoshop Elements can't work without virtual memory. That's studid
because even if one has a lot of memory he's stuck here.

First, disabling the paging file does not eliminate virtual memory, since
there will still be a hidden (minimum) 2MB file on the system drive.
Technically, according to the Windows XP Help (Glossary: Paging File) Topic:
"The paging file and physical memory, or RAM, comprise virtual memory."
Of course when most people use the term Virtual Memory, they only mean the
disk-based part. I assume that graphics programs need a lot more virtual
memory than is obvious because of the need to store complete information to
"Undo" editing changes and such like things. (I undo a lot! :)

Almost always do when possible. It's on its own now, NTFS, 64KB clusters
to provide a better speed. Can't use a separate controller because it's
laptop with obviously limited hardware.

The "speed" may be an illusion. Yes, with 64KB clusters there would be fewer
clusters for both Windows and the MFT (Master File Table) to keep track of,
and therefore electronic transfer of information would be quicker. (And less
possibility of fragmentation with large clusters.) However, the drive still
has to read or write to the individual 512-byte sectors, with a fixed RPM
rotation rate and fixed seek time for the mechanical read/write arm.
Depending where the page file partition is physically located, relative to
the location of the primary system and program files, you may end up with
slower performance while multi-tasking with a lot of page swaps swinging the
head between two widely separated locations in partitions on the same
physical drive. A pagefile on a separate physical drive that was not in
competition with action on the system drive could be faster, (if it is not
on an older slower drive. :)

Another wrinkle is the way Windows sets up the location of the pagefile on
the volume in the first place, placing it widely separated from the initial
system files. The outermost tracks have the highest number of sectors per
track and therefore the fastest access times, and Windows XP is better than
previous versions because it will move frequently used files closer to the
beginning of the drive to improve access speed, (and it uses prefetch to
speed things up also,) but it does not position the pagefile all that close
to the beginning of the drive near the fastest outermost track.

Another problem I noticed with another computer here, (WinXP-home-SP3,)
with an 83.2GB drive, with a hidden recovery partition, is that the 2.01GB
recovery partition is the first on the drive, so the beginning of the main
80GB partition does not start at the outermost track to begin with. That
computer has 256MB RAM, but the (right-click on My Computer) System
Properties shows it as only 224MB RAM. Both minimum and maximum custom
pagefile were pre-set to 672MB (~3 times RAM size) and elsewhere I noticed
that the reserved (contiguous clusters) pagefile space was 879.66MB.

Another interesting thing with that computer was after installing Avast!
antivirus, I pressed alt+ctrl+del to activate Task Manager with the
Performance tab with the CPU usage and PF usage graphs, and then activated
the full antivirus scan. The CPU usage immediately max'd out at 100% for
more than a minute with occasional downward spikes a few percent less. The
most amazing thing was the PF usage graph, which is ordinarily flat-lined
near the bottom, it became frantic and started jumping up and down like
wild. (Peak 532MB) I assume Avast! was examining every little process in
memory, aggressively swapping pages to see if any viruses or other malware
were active. ("There's a new Sheriff in town!" :)

The most important thing to remember is that, although the word "disk" in
the term Hard Disk Drive is singular, most desktop computer drives actually
have from 1 to 4 platters inside with 2 heads per platter. That previously
mentioned 83.2GB drive has 1 platter with 2 heads, so there is a 2nd
outermost track area on the 2nd side of the platter where a small pagefile
partition could be set up on the fast track - simply position the partition
slightly past the mid point of the whole drive space. (You would not want
part of the pagefile on the slow inner track of the first side, and part on
the outer track of the 2nd side. Talk about disk chatter thrashing! :)

Keep in mind also that with NTFS format, the MFT is the first file put on
the partition, and there is a 12.5% space reserved for the MFT Zone on the
partition, so allow maybe an extra 20% more than the maximum pagefile size
for the partition size. The computer I'm currently using to post this
message has a 250GB drive with 2 platters and 4 heads, so it has 4 surfaces
with outermost fast tracks. The drives in both computers are 3.5 inch form
factor (with 3.74 inch platters) and the circumference of the outermost
track is more than 2 times longer, with more than 2 times as many sectors as
the innermost track. That means disk read speeds are generally more than
twice as fast on the outer tracks than the inner ones.

I'm guessing that your laptop probably has a low profile 2.5 inch HDD, so it
would have a shorter distance for the read/write head to move between the
innermost and outermost tracks. Using the 1.5x rule, with 3.24GB RAM, you
would need a minimum (initial) pagefile of 4.86GB, in at least a 6GB
partition. You should be able to set the maximum the same as the minimum
initial size. How big is your internal drive anyway?

BTW: You appear to be using Outlook Express with Avast! antivirus checking
your outgoing messages. Outlook Express sometimes malfunctions when a/v
scans messages. You might want to drop over to the OutlookExpress newsgroup
and learn more about OE quirks, and check out these other links here:

news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx

Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm

(Be happy! Be VERY happy! :)
--Richard

- - -
BONUS SECTION: Virtual Memory FAQtoids

For those who don't know where Virtual Memory settings are located:
Right-click My Computer and choose Properties for "System Properties".
(Or hold Windows-Logo key down and press Pause/Break)
Click "Advanced" tab. - In Performance section, click "Settings" button.
Click "Advanced" tab. - In Virtual memory section, click "Change" button.
(Right-click on various items and click "What's This" for help info.)

Virtual Memory Best Practices:

• For best performance, set the initial size to not less than the
recommended size under Total paging file size for all drives. The
recommended size is equivalent to 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your
system.
• If you decrease the size of either the minimum or maximum page file
settings, you must restart your computer to see the effects of those
changes. Increases generally do not require a restart.
• Usually, you should leave the paging file at its recommended size,
although you might increase its size if you routinely use programs that
require a lot of memory.
• To delete a paging file, set both initial size and maximum size to zero.
("Microsoft strongly recommends that you do not disable the paging file.")

Managing computer memory:

When your computer is running low on random access memory (RAM) and more is
needed to complete your current task, Windows uses hard drive space to
simulate system RAM. In Windows, this is known as virtual memory, and often
called the pagefile. This is similar to the UNIX swapfile. The default size
of the virtual memory pagefile (appropriately named Pagefile.sys) created
during installation is 1.5 times the amount of RAM on your computer.

You can optimize virtual memory use by dividing the space between multiple
drives and by removing it from slower or heavily accessed drives. To best
optimize your virtual memory space, divide it across as many physical hard
drives as possible.

When selecting drives, keep the following guidelines in mind:

• Try to avoid having a pagefile on the same drive as the system files.
• Avoid putting a pagefile on a fault-tolerant drive, such as a mirrored
volume or a RAID-5 volume. Pagefiles do not need fault-tolerance, and some
fault-tolerant systems are slow because they write data to multiple
locations.
• Do not place multiple pagefiles on different partitions on the same
physical disk drive.
- - -
 
J

Just D.

Hi Richard,
Mine is currently 224MB with a light load of 27 processes. (I'm writing
this
offline.) I have 1GB RAM, with a 3Ghz Pentium 4 CPU. (WinXP-pro-SP3.) Out
of
the box, the pagefile was set to Minimum 1524MB, and Maximum 3048MB. The
highest that it has ever gone is about 343MB. The minimum was apparently

It always depends on what you do with this machine. I'm a pro developer
having VS, SQL Servers, Web Servers, FTP Servers, MS Office, and many other
apps running at the same time. So when I was using 1GB of RAM it was toooo
slowly. 2GB is more or less acceptable, but 4 is much better for sure.
First, disabling the paging file does not eliminate virtual memory, since
there will still be a hidden (minimum) 2MB file on the system drive.

Are you sure? Do you want me to send you a screen shot with both root dirs
C: and D: with no pagefile? I was surprised when I read that from you and
decided to test, maybe I skipped something important from the recent
updates, but no, I'm right, there is no any swap file now.
disk-based part. I assume that graphics programs need a lot more virtual
memory than is obvious because of the need to store complete information
to "Undo" editing changes and such like things. (I undo a lot! :)

Well, the graphics program usually creates its own swap file. Example -
Adobe Photoshop Elements or Photoshop, doesn't matter. You have to set the
drives to be used as the first swap drive, the second one... And it creates
its own temp files right on the root. It has nothing to the regular system
swap file, but if you disable it you can easily get a problem with Adobe
products. Maybe it's fixed now, I tried that last time many years ago. Well,
just tested again and got the message - "Could not start Adobe Photoshop
Elements because the volume Windows is using for the Virtual Memory doesn't
have enough space, which could lead..." The reason is that the main swap
file was disabled, but both drives have 20GB and about 350GB of free space
accordingly. :) Enough?
The "speed" may be an illusion. Yes, with 64KB clusters there would be
fewer clusters for both Windows and the MFT (Master File Table) to keep
track
of, and therefore electronic transfer of information would be quicker.
(And
less possibility of fragmentation with large clusters.) However, the drive
still has to read or write to the individual 512-byte sectors, with a
fixed RPM
rotation rate and fixed seek time for the mechanical read/write arm.

Well, I'm just talking that the whole system will copy large file much
faster. I usually edit huge video files, this is some kind of hobby. One DV
tape is about 14-15GB file. Have you ever tried to copy these files from
disk to disk? Try that with the different cluster size, you will be
impressed. After you copied a few tenths or greater GB size file it takes a
very long time to close the file on disk after the process is finished if
the cluster size is 4KB - default value. It works like a sharm if the
cluster size on the same disk is 64KB and it taqkes just a few seconds to
close the file. The same on 4KB clusters - from 20 seconds and longer. Trust
me, this effect is visible not only on the disk system. When you want to
copy something over the LAN you can find the speed too slow. Try to google
for "Jumbo Frame". You will probably find what the default block size is
when you transfer the file over the LAN and how much efforts it takes from
the network adapter and CPU to fragment this huge amount of data and then
reassemble it on the remote size. It's not only theory, it's very serious to
be true.
Depending where the page file partition is physically located, relative to
the location of the primary system and program files, you may end up with
slower performance while multi-tasking with a lot of page swaps swinging
the head between two widely separated locations in partitions on the same
physical drive. A pagefile on a separate physical drive that was not in
competition with action on the system drive could be faster, (if it is not
on an older slower drive. :)

This is from a very old FAQ, I think over 20 years ago, and this is true. It
was especially true on the very old MFM drives if you have any idea what
that is. It's just a question of how you tune your computer up, there are
many tricks to do that. Btw, according to one of your phrases you've never
seem a fragmented swap file. Take a closer look and you will find it. I know
that because it was always some kind of game to get this file as
unfragmented as possible. I think if you run:
defrag.exe c: -a -f
on several different machines it will show the swap file fragmentation.
Another wrinkle is the way Windows sets up the location of the pagefile on
the volume in the first place, placing it widely separated from the
initial system files. The outermost tracks have the highest number of
sectors per

Do you want me to send you a screen shot with the location of my swap file
when I use it? :) And realistically the files that the system uses more
often should be located as close as possible, say, in the middle of the disk
or in the first third, depending on the disk occupation. :) In this case the
seek delay will be the shortest. Some speedisk apps in the history were able
to get the statistics of the file usage using the last access attribute of
the file moving it to the fastest accessible area. I'm sure you're not aware
of that.
track and therefore the fastest access times, and Windows XP is better
than previous versions because it will move frequently used files closer
to the
beginning of the drive to improve access speed, (and it uses prefetch to

Yea, and then make the heads fly between the beginning of the disk and
working areas with the user files. :)

I think it's incorrect, partially or at all. It was a very ancient idea to
start using disk from the very beginning filling the first fragments that
have been met. I guess it ended with MS DOS 3.31 or so over 20 years ago.
Even MS DOS 6.21 was allowing a terrible fragmentation and it was writing
files using absolutely different schema. A little later different disk cache
systems appeared and some of them even started writing the files trying to
move the heads as less as possible and basically keeping the heads in the
middle of the disk to shorten the access speed.
speed things up also,) but it does not position the pagefile all that
close to the beginning of the drive near the fastest outermost track.

Dreams... Open your eyes. There are apps letting you take a look at the
drive map. For example when I enabled the swap file in my system when the
system was installed, it appeared after all system and other files, apprx.
from 75% to 80% of the first partition, but it's just rough evaluation. The
physical drive had 2 partitions - 80 and the rest.
Another problem I noticed with another computer here, (WinXP-home-SP3,)
with an 83.2GB drive, with a hidden recovery partition, is that the 2.01GB
recovery partition is the first on the drive, so the beginning of the main

When one creates a partition, doesn't matter working or recovery one, he is
able to put it to any place. Btw, Acronis was taking the very last cylinder
of the disk for its own hidden recovery partition up to version 11, then in
version 2009 they started using the system (NTFS) partition, which is
nonsense. I wrote them what I'm thinking about this stupid solution, but
this is off topic here. I can just add that they switched from Linux based
Recovery Partition to Windows based.
Another interesting thing with that computer was after installing Avast!
antivirus, I pressed alt+ctrl+del to activate Task Manager with the
Performance tab with the CPU usage and PF usage graphs, and then activated
the full antivirus scan. The CPU usage immediately max'd out at 100% for
more than a minute with occasional downward spikes a few percent less. The

It was testing real processes in memory, that's why.
most amazing thing was the PF usage graph, which is ordinarily flat-lined
near the bottom, it became frantic and started jumping up and down like
wild. (Peak 532MB) I assume Avast! was examining every little process in

It was testing the files loading them one by one. :) If you enabled the deep
recursive search inside archives it could take this amount of memory.
memory, aggressively swapping pages to see if any viruses or other malware
were active. ("There's a new Sheriff in town!" :)

Really? Does it really need to swap processes to test them? :):):) There is
something really new. Actually if you know the entry point of the process...
The most important thing to remember is that, although the word "disk" in
the term Hard Disk Drive is singular, most desktop computer drives
actually
have from 1 to 4 platters inside with 2 heads per platter. That previously
mentioned 83.2GB drive has 1 platter with 2 heads, so there is a 2nd
outermost track area on the 2nd side of the platter where a small pagefile
partition could be set up on the fast track - simply position the
partition

I guess you never heard about interleave, about block of heads and how they
work, about different zones on the hard drives having different number of
sectors and in what year that appeared..., etc.
Keep in mind also that with NTFS format, the MFT is the first file put on
the partition, and there is a 12.5% space reserved for the MFT Zone on the
partition, so allow maybe an extra 20% more than the maximum pagefile size
for the partition size. The computer I'm currently using to post this
message has a 250GB drive with 2 platters and 4 heads, so it has 4
surfaces with outermost fast tracks. The drives in both computers are 3.5
inch form

And you're sure that all these surfaces and heads are working independently?
:)
the innermost track. That means disk read speeds are generally more than
twice as fast on the outer tracks than the inner ones.

Depends on the disk generation, controller, interface, the number of
defective sectors, remapping, the country origin, the hard drive quality and
couple thousand more factors. :) I hope you know what the remapping is?
I'm guessing that your laptop probably has a low profile 2.5 inch HDD, so
it would have a shorter distance for the read/write head to move between
the
innermost and outermost tracks. Using the 1.5x rule, with 3.24GB RAM, you
would need a minimum (initial) pagefile of 4.86GB, in at least a 6GB
partition. You should be able to set the maximum the same as the minimum
initial size. How big is your internal drive anyway?

Not 80 like your, it's half-a-TB. There are bigger ones, but they are 12mm
height and the current standard supports only 8.5-9 mm 2.5" drives.
BTW: You appear to be using Outlook Express with Avast! antivirus checking
your outgoing messages. Outlook Express sometimes malfunctions when a/v
scans messages. You might want to drop over to the OutlookExpress

Well, it scans mostly before they arrive, it works like an additional layer,
but when we scan the whole PC the mail base files will be scanned as well.
newsgroup and learn more about OE quirks, and check out these other links
here:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
http://www.oehelp.com/OETips.aspx

The smartest idea written at the link above is to completely disable
antivirus protection for email messages. :):):) Bravo!

You can definitely destroy the Inbox folder, but I never keep anything here,
that's first. Second - Avast works correctly comparing to Kaspersky's AVP.
It can destroy you the Inbox folder if you use an older version of this
software. I know these cases.

Just wondering - are you keeping all your messages in one folder? You're not
using any rules to automatically move them to different folders, right?
Why you don't need your anti-virus to scan your email
http://thundercloud.net/infoave/tutorials/email-scanning/index.htm

Yes-yes. But I'm not a boy to believe in everything I read on the Internet.
(Be happy! Be VERY happy! :)
--Richard

Well, I'm really happy, :)

Just D.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top