Pagefile, why so large despite available memory?

[Pradip]

I just upgraded to full 4GB memory in my machine. After bootup the
system finds 3.3 GB, and I understand what is happening here. With
very little else running, I have 2.4 GB physical RAM available.
However, the pagefile (commit charge) is still 780 MB. Wondering why
windows is leaving the physical memory available and using pagefile
instead? Please enlighten. Thanks.

Pradip

 

[gsjutla]

It is a default behavior. the kernel will keep a reasonable amount of balance
between the physical memory usage and page file for a number of reasons.
Imagine if your machine first used up all physical memory and then when it
needed to flush it in a page file, what would have been the performance of
the system.

 

[Daave]

I just upgraded to full 4GB memory in my machine. After bootup the
system finds 3.3 GB, and I understand what is happening here. With
very little else running, I have 2.4 GB physical RAM available.
However, the pagefile (commit charge) is still 780 MB. Wondering why
windows is leaving the physical memory available and using pagefile
instead? Please enlighten. Thanks.

First of all, if you have lots of memory, you will hardly be using the
pagefile. This is good; RAM is always faster!

If you have 2.4 GB of RAM available, then I assume you're using only .9
GB. Sounds like you have way more than enough! You shouldn't need to
rely on the pagefile at all.

You need to provide better figures. Open Task Manager. Click on the
Performance tab. Look in the bottom left-hand corner where it says
Commit Charge (K). What are the values for Total, Limit, and Peak?

And how do you have Virtual Memory configured?

Right-click on My computer and select Properties. Go to the Advanced tab
and click on Settings (under Performance). Change to Advanced, hit
Change and select the target drive for your virtual memory file.

Which is selected: Custom or System managed size? If Custom, what is the
initial size and what is the maximum size?

Usually, System managed is just fine. If you prefer to read up more and
customize it properly (although the end result may very well be the
same!), see "Virtual Memory in Windows XP":

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

 

[Andrew E.]

Set the virtual memory to "let system manage"..The performance ability in
xp needs to get edited,go to run,type:regedit In regedit,expand:HKEY_LOCAL_
MACHINE/system/currentcontrolset/sessionmanager/open memory management.
L.click onisablePagingExecutive,go to edit,modify,set to 1 from 0 close
out
regedit
You can get the facts
from:http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/gaming/SYS_reg.htm

 

[Gerry]

Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to select Task Manager and click the Performance
Tab. Under Commit Charge what is the Total, the Limit and the Peak?

The Total is the memory currently being used , the Peak is what it has
been and the Limit is the amount available i.e RAM and pagefile. Given
that the Total and the Peak are less than the RAM it is likely
that the system is only making nominal use of the slower pagefile.

You can do a better check on pagefile usage using pagefilemon.

Use page file monitor to observe what is the peak usage. Start it to run
immediately after start-up and look at the log. Pagefilemon takes
snapshots. You need to run it at the beginning of the session at then
run it again at intervals throughout the sessions. The log is Pagefile
log.txt. If you right click on the file in Windows Explorer and select
Send to, Desktop (Create Shortcut). The same applies to
XP_PageFileMon.exe.

A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm

Note that programs using undo features, particularly those associated
with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts of memory so if
you use this type of programme check these first observing how the page
usage increases when they start and whether the usage decreases when you
close the programme.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gerry]

Daave

A certain person might have avoided two confrontations had it been put
this way:

Please note that Windows does not automatically adjust the size of the
page file after an increase in the amount of physical memory. In such
cases, you should manually change the page file settings.
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-010484.htm

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gerry]

Andrew

Your link does not work. I am not sure which page you intended.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Peter Foldes]

Andrew

WTF are you saying. You are one dangerous dude by giving such advice to the OP.

Go and play with what you are comfortable with. It is the same age as you right down to the minute and second

 

[John John]

What you are seeing in the Task Manager with regards to pagefile size is
quite deceptive. The size reported there is not necessarily what
Windows is actually using or an indication of how much paging activity
is going on, it is just "reserved" pagefile allocation. Use Perfmon to
monitor the real pagefile size (Start | Run | Perfmon & click OK).

John

 

[Daave]

Whatever are you talking about, Gerry?

Daave

A certain person might have avoided two confrontations had it been put
this way:

Please note that Windows does not automatically adjust the size of the
page file after an increase in the amount of physical memory. In such
cases, you should manually change the page file settings.
http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-010484.htm

 

[Jim]

I just upgraded to full 4GB memory in my machine. After bootup the
system finds 3.3 GB, and I understand what is happening here. With
very little else running, I have 2.4 GB physical RAM available.
However, the pagefile (commit charge) is still 780 MB. Wondering why
windows is leaving the physical memory available and using pagefile
instead? Please enlighten. Thanks.

Pradip

As I understand it, commit charge is what has been reserved just in case it
needs to be used. Hence, Windows may or may not use that much
of the pagefile. In any case, if you are not having performance issues, you
are needlessly worrying about this issue.

Jim

 

[Gerry]

Daave

You have a short memory. Another group yesterday!


~~~~


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Daave]

Yes, Gerry. I knew you were referring to David B. Hence the smiley face.

Sometimes humor doesn't travel well in newsgroups!

 

[Daave]

This is where the Wayback Machine comes in handy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031213153428/http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/gaming/SYS_reg.htm

But I don't know what the context is (other than gaming), and I'm
*always* suspicious of anything Andrew E. posts. My recommendation is to
leave it alone. But I'm open to hearing about anybody's positive
experiences with this particular registry hack.

 

[Gerry]

Daave

Only because it appears as a little red X here so I did not see it.

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Gerry]

Daave

One is right to be cautious but you cannot put someone in jail and throw
away the key. Personally I avoid recommending registry editing. I have
been to the Intel site many times but this part of their knowledge base
is new to me. Something I should thank Andrew E. for.

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Daave]

That's strange. Just an ordinary plain text emoticon, or so I thought.

 

[Gerry]

Daave

"Plain text emoticon"? I changed an Outlook Express setting; Tools,
Options, Security, Block Images and other external content in HTML
email. I can then see your smiley. Without this change it appears as
in the Message Source page. The Block Images etc is probably a default
setting .

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[... et al.]

This is where the Wayback Machine comes in handy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20031213153428/http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/gaming/SYS_reg.htm

And via:
<http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/gaming/index.htm>,
we find that it still exist as:
<http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-010485.htm>
on Intel's web-site, now with an 'This applies to:' chipset
section.

VIA, what do you recommend for yours?

 

[... et al.]

And via:
<http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/gaming/index.htm>,
we find that it still exist as:
<http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/CS-010485.htm>
on Intel's web-site, now with an 'This applies to:' chipset section.

VIA, what do you recommend for yours?

That would be Nvidia and ATI, not VIA.