memory counters gone

[Guest]

** Refreshed this page, and this post was gone !!
????
I set 'no page file', booted into safe mode, ran performance monitor, set PF
to 'system managed', rebooted into normal mode AND LO AND BEHOLD the memory(
plus other ) counter is missing. MS support say it is because virtual memory
is set to zero, but my PF is at 575Mb. Any clues ??

 

[db]

simply override the
virtual mem:

use min=2 and max=1152
and be sure its on the same
partition as the o.s.

- db
** Refreshed this page, and this post was gone !!
????
I set 'no page file', booted into safe mode, ran performance monitor, set PF
to 'system managed', rebooted into normal mode AND LO AND BEHOLD the memory(
plus other ) counter is missing. MS support say it is because virtual memory
is set to zero, but my PF is at 575Mb. Any clues ??

 

[Guest]

Sorry to have to tell you db, with PF set manually , ( already tried) it
still doesn't show many counters like 'memory' in the list of counters. What
to do now ?

 

[John John]

Try rebuilding the performance counter library values.

How to manually rebuild Performance Counter Library values
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/300956/en-us

John

 

[db]

there is nothing to
be "sorry" for.

we are simply trying
to help and provide
suggestions.

if you already tried
a suggestion, you might
want to say something like
"thanks dude for that narly
suggestion be i tried it already
and dun't wurk"
or "been there n done that"
then we simply try a new
approach.

the subsequent posting
seems to be interesting
and on target.

hope it works, let us know...!

- db
Sorry to have to tell you db, with PF set manually , ( already tried) it
still doesn't show many counters like 'memory' in the list of counters. What
to do now ?

 

[Guest]

THANKS for the lead John John. Know I know what went wrong . But it sounds
horrendous. will try restore first.

 

[Guest]

I don't see the difference in manually setting the PF or in system managed
setting when the values are the same.
btw, how did you come to max = 1152, when most advice is for max PF to be
1.5 * RAM.

 

[db]

most advice does suggest that
ratio.

then there is other advice that
suggests differently. most
users/pc's never use more
than 1/2 the ram size while
others may need 4 times
the ram amount.

a min=2 and max=1152
is a median and workable
range that can later be
tuned down or up.

here is some additional info:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417/

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/virtual-memory1.htm

- db
I don't see the difference in manually setting the PF or in system managed
setting when the values are the same.
btw, how did you come to max = 1152, when most advice is for max PF to be
1.5 * RAM.

 

[Rock]

I don't see the difference in manually setting the PF or in system managed
setting when the values are the same.
btw, how did you come to max = 1152, when most advice is for max PF to be
1.5 * RAM.

How much to allocate for the page file depends on the amount of installed
RAM and the programs that are run. The 1.5 x the amount of installed RAM is
a rule of thumb that doesn't have much meaning. When installed RAM is low
this number is also too low. With plenty of RAM this number is too high.
Best is to use a utility to see how much the page file is actually being
used on your system and set the page file size accordingly. Note: setting
it higher than needed doesn't cause a problem, it just wastes that disk
space, but with disk space being cheap these days, that might not be an
issue.

See this excellent link for info on Virtual Memory in XP and how to set the
page file. It includes a download link to a utility to monitor actual page
file usage, which is different than page file allocation.

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