question about memory & pagefile usage

  • Thread starter Thread starter yerk5
  • Start date Start date
Y

yerk5

I recently upgraded from 256 Mb ram to 1 Gb, and didn't really notice
any performance improvement. I wanted to see if my theory about why
sounds right.

I noticed that when I check the performance tab in task manager, it
shows pagefile usage rather than memory usage. So this means even
after the upgrade, Windows + all my start up apps are eating up the
entire gig of memory and still need a pagefile.

Before my system was using 256MB ram + a larger page file, whereas now
its using 1Gb + a smaller page file, so essentially would that explain
roughly why I don't feel a performance improvement? Because, yeah, I
added more ram, but it's all being used up right away anyway, and I'm
still in slower pagefile performance mode, so to speak?
 
I recently upgraded from 256 Mb ram to 1 Gb, and didn't really notice
any performance improvement. I wanted to see if my theory about why
sounds right.

I noticed that when I check the performance tab in task manager, it
shows pagefile usage rather than memory usage. So this means even
after the upgrade, Windows + all my start up apps are eating up the
entire gig of memory and still need a pagefile.

Before my system was using 256MB ram + a larger page file, whereas now
its using 1Gb + a smaller page file, so essentially would that explain
roughly why I don't feel a performance improvement? Because, yeah, I
added more ram, but it's all being used up right away anyway, and I'm
still in slower pagefile performance mode, so to speak?
Click to expand...

It's normal to show Page File Usage in Task Manager. Have a look at
"Available" under the "Physical Memory (K)" section on the same page to see
how much RAM is actually being used. The reason that you haven't
experienced much of a performance increase may be that your applications
don't place an enormous demand on the available RAM and therefore there was
enough available RAM to run the apps effectively even with only 256MB of
physical memory. XP can run quite acceptably in 256MB RAM - unlike it's
successor Vista - if the application load is not that great.

--
And loving it,

-Q
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
(Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me)
 
I recently upgraded from 256 Mb ram to 1 Gb, and didn't really notice
any performance improvement. I wanted to see if my theory about why
sounds right.

I noticed that when I check the performance tab in task manager, it
shows pagefile usage rather than memory usage. So this means even
after the upgrade, Windows + all my start up apps are eating up the
entire gig of memory and still need a pagefile.

Before my system was using 256MB ram + a larger page file, whereas now
its using 1Gb + a smaller page file, so essentially would that explain
roughly why I don't feel a performance improvement? Because, yeah, I
added more ram, but it's all being used up right away anyway, and I'm
still in slower pagefile performance mode, so to speak?
Click to expand...


No, your theory isn't right. See this article by the late MVP Alex
Nichol for more information on the page file: Virtual Memory in
Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm/

Although many people will tell you that adding memory always improves
performance, that is not necessarily true. Adding memory will improve
performance only if you were using the page file significantly (that's
actually *using*, not just allocating the space). If the additional
memory results in decreased page file use (again, *use*, not just
allocation) then the result will be better performance.

How much memory you need to keep you from using the page file
appreciably isn't the same for everyone and depends on what apps you
run. For most people not doing graphics or video editing, it's usually
somewhere in the range of 256-512MB. It would appear from what you
report that 256MB was enough for you.
 
Ken Blake said:
How much memory you need to keep you from using the page file
appreciably isn't the same for everyone and depends on what apps you
run. For most people not doing graphics or video editing, it's usually
somewhere in the range of 256-512MB. It would appear from what you
report that 256MB was enough for you.
Click to expand...

Ken is, as usual, right-on. I will add however that you didn't totally
waste your money/time by adding more memory; XP _WILL_ make use of it all,
by caching disk blocks in the RAM, so your system will benefit from the
extra RAM, tho you may not notice a huge performance improvement, just a
little one. And the next time you open a big PDF or try to print out a
complex document you'll also notice an improvement. So enjoy your new RAM!

Also, in Task Manager the "Available RAM" line is NOT "Unused RAM", as
some people believe, it's RAM that is available for re-use; it's being
used but can be re-purposed without any overhead when needed.
 
I recently upgraded from 256 Mb ram to 1 Gb, and didn't really notice
any performance improvement. I wanted to see if my theory about why
sounds right.

I noticed that when I check the performance tab in task manager, it
shows pagefile usage rather than memory usage. So this means even
after the upgrade, Windows + all my start up apps are eating up the
entire gig of memory and still need a pagefile.

Before my system was using 256MB ram + a larger page file, whereas now
its using 1Gb + a smaller page file, so essentially would that explain
roughly why I don't feel a performance improvement? Because, yeah, I
added more ram, but it's all being used up right away anyway, and I'm
still in slower pagefile performance mode, so to speak?
Click to expand...

To add one last comment, even with 1GB of RAM there will be some allocation
to the page file, but the amount of page file that's actually being used,
which is different than the allocation, is much less. XP relies on virtual
memory for it's memory management. See the article Ken gave the link for to
understand how virtual memory works in XP.
 
I recently upgraded from 256 Mb ram to 1 Gb, and didn't really notice
any performance improvement. I wanted to see if my theory about why
sounds right.
Click to expand...

Perhaps your CPU isn't up to the task of a new OS.
 
Back
Top