B
Bob F
Are there any freeware programs that would allow the inaccessable upper memory
to be used as the swapfile?
to be used as the swapfile?
T
Tim Meddick
From what I have been led to beleive, there is only a problem for XP to
access RAM *above* the 4GB limit - there isn't an "unaccessable part of 4GB
XP 32 memory"...
Please see this short disscussion ;
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/118114-using-4gb-ram-xp-pro.html
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
access RAM *above* the 4GB limit - there isn't an "unaccessable part of 4GB
XP 32 memory"...
Please see this short disscussion ;
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/118114-using-4gb-ram-xp-pro.html
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
B
BillW50
Not sure, but I hear tell that RamDrives work well past the upper end.
And RamDrives work well for swapfiles.
P
Paul
Bob said:
There is a RAMdisk program here you can try. Then move the pagefile
over to it.
http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk
I recommend doing a backup before using it, and experiment with it
for a few days, to see if it is stable. I stopped using it, as it
wasn't completely bug free when I tried it. (System didn't crash,
but a couple applications misbehaved a bit.)
Also, it wouldn't use all of the RAM that was "hoisted" above 4GB,
and I don't know the reason for that. I can't really predict for
you, what max disk size will result.
This is the performance I got from my experiment. It can be
pretty fast. This was done on a system with 6GB installed RAM.
http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8694/hdtunedataram2gbabove.gif
Paul
K
Ken Blake, MVP
No. What you are calling the "inaccessable upper memory" is in use by
hardware, but not available to Windows.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Using a RAM disk for the page file makes no sense. You will very
likely *hurt* overall performance by giving Windows less memory to
work with, and thereby causing it to page more. Using a RAM disk in
Windows is almost always counterproductive.
B
BillW50
Nope! I didn't read the article yet, but the 4GB limit isn't imposed on
all XP 32-bit versions. As some of the server editions can use far more
(up to 128GB). The reason for the artificial limit with some XP editions
is because most 32 bit drivers wasn't written to support past the 4GB
barrier. So Microsoft plugged in a 4GB artificial limit. Which btw, can
be hacked out. This might not be what I original read about this stuff,
but it is a start.
Physical Address Extension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension
P
Paul
It makes sense if you think about it for a moment.
Microsoft won't allow you to go above 4GB ("free").
You install a RAMdisk which happens to use 2GB of memory, above the 4GB mark.
Now, you can start multiple programs and have more than 4GB in usage at
one time. Not all the programs can be fully paged in at the same time.
Neither can a single program use that much memory. But within reason,
you can actually get to use more of what you paid for. It means the memory
above 4GB on your 32 bit system, can actually be used for something of
value, instead of being ignored.
Because the RAMDisk is so fast (zero seek, 4GB/sec sustained), any paging
activity is fast enough to be seamless. And a big improvement over the
grumpy OS that results from paging to a regular rotating hard drive.
Paul
B
BillW50
Oh I don't know about that. I experimented a lot over this. For example,
anything more than 1GB for most XP home users will probably go unused.
As I almost never use more than 900MB myself.
So anything more just sits there and it is what, like a dozen or more
faster than hard drives? For example, copying a DVD movie RAM to RAM
only takes a second or two. How long does it take from hard drive to
hard drive? Far longer than a few seconds.
And in my experiments, any RAM that you don't need for Windows and use
the rest for a RamDrive and throw the swapfile in there is a huge speed
payoff. You would think just turning off the swapfile and allowing
Windows to use more of the RAM would do the same thing. But it doesn't
appear so.
P
philo
BillW50 said:
Correct.
PAE (if supported) is the only way to go
C
Char Jackson
Sort of. The *addresses* are mapped to hardware, so the memory that
would normally use those addresses is unavailable because it's
inaccessible.
There are ways around it, but the average person shouldn't go there.
C
Char Jackson
Weird, I just saw the same question in another newsgroup. You'd think
it would have been crossposted, but no.
M
Mike S
From what I have been led to beleive, there is only a problem for XP to
access RAM *above* the 4GB limit - there isn't an "unaccessable part of
4GB XP 32 memory"... Please see this short disscussion ;
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/118114-using-4gb-ram-xp-pro.html
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
I have XP Pro SP3 w/2GB, some is used for the onboard video so Windows
reports that I have a bit less than 2GB installed... when I tried to
install a graphics editor that requires 2GB min. it wouldn't install, so
I wanted to bump up the RAM and was wondering how much I could add, this
discussion cleared it up - I'll add 2GB and use the /PAE switch, this
may even speed up Photoshop CS too... I'll take any improvements I can
get there... thanks!
Mike
P
Paul
Mike said:
If you do 2GB + 2GB for a total of 4GB, WinXP 32 bit is likely to
report around 3GB free (and you don't have to do anything, because SP3
should already have PAE enabled). And that should be sufficient for
your graphics editor.
To check that PAE is the default condition for SP3, open the "System"
control panel. It's a string near the bottom of the panel.
"Physical Address Extension"
That should tell you it's already there. Even before you do your
memory upgrade, that should be printed there.
I have 4GB installed. I have a 512MB video card. And Windows
reports 3GB free.
Paul