Virtual Memory is too low

[Laughingstar~*]

db, you told me to reduce my VM, remember?

the initial size is the minimum windows
permits. if you look at the configuration
dialog for the virtual memory, it indicates
the minimum allowed. but you can also
input a 0 or a 1 and you will get a simple
message about it.


you don't have to use 2 and can test your system with
higher sizes, that is if you have the time and
patience. something to realize however, is that windows
will not use more virtual memory than
is necessary. if i'm not mistake the limit is 1.5 times
the size of your physical ram.

so if you max out your page file with
a high amount say like 5 times the ram size, you
will only be wasting that additional space that
has been reserved for vm but "will not" be used by windows.

although automatic resizing is a convenience
for users, it is not always the best option for
some systems, especially the older ones. Thus
windows nags about the low virtual.

my systems are optimized with custom sizes
and i never get that nag. however, other systems may
use the automatic resizing just fine and never get the
nag as well.

here is a link with more fyi on vm:

http://search.microsoft.com/results...OME&setlang=en-US&q=how+to+set+virtual+memory


--




.

 

[Laughingstar~*]

I hate VM, and that its even accessible to the majority of users. MS Level I
tech told me I knew more than any of his consumers. Well, a little bit of
knowledge can get one in trouble... ;0))

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

actually, if the virtual memory too
low message implies that the space
reserved for it is insufficient.

for example let say you have
512 megabytes of ram. logically
the maximum size of the vm should
be 1.5. So the max should be set
at 768 megabytes.

however, if the max is set like 100
megabytes instead of 768 megabytes
your machine will tell you that the
vm is too low.

now let's say you want to set the
max range beyond 768 like 2500
megabytes. your machine will not
cry out about vm being too low,
however, 2500 megs is too large
and windows simply won't use all
that additional space. In fact, it
actually degrades the performance
of the operating system and wasting
valuable disk space as well.


in regards to the minimum size this
is simply a low side of the range.

as mentioned, go ahead and take
the time to optimize your system.
by trying different ranges or settings.

however, i always suggest as a
default fix for low vm is to set
it to custom size of min=2 and
max=1152.

1152 may be too much for
some systems, but it works fairly
well and can be adjusted to be
lower or just left as is.

after you find the optimum
size for your vm. let me know
and I can provide additional
fyi to help you monitor your
new settings....

but first work on the initial
issue your o.s. is having....


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Gerry]

Your statement "is too large and windows simply won't use all that
additional space. In fact, it actually degrades the performance of
the operating system and wasting valuable disk space as well." set me
wondering how you might justify what you have said!

Free disk space is valuable if you have insuffient and less or not
valuable if you have plenty!

Why would an overlarge pagefile degrade performance?

Your posts must have the shortest line length in these newsgroups. Is
this necessary or could you make them longer?

--
Regards.

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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

the vm is a machine limitation.

in this case, the limitation is based
on the physical memory size of your
the ram chips.

let's say you have a pc with 64 megabytes,
of course this is only an example.

the virtual memory was designed to help
move data in and out of the physical ram
onto the disk in a special file called pagefile.sys

mathematically a 1 to 1 ratio could be
used. so if you only have a 64 megabyte
ram chip, then all it can mechanically move
to and from the pagefile.sys is 64 megabytes
of data.

if one tries to set the size of a pagefile to
a size 1000 megabytes, the machine will
still only use 64 megabytes because of the
physical ram.

the above is only an example is an
extreme only to help illustrate and explain.

lets say that the vm has been set to a max
size of 1000 megabytes but you only have
a 64 megabyte ram chip, then approximately
936 megabytes of disk space that can be
used for regular data is instead locked up/
reserved for vm eventhough the o.s. can't
use it. and depending on the user, most
regular computers never use 50 percent
of the virtual memory anyways.

powerusers, and high end graphics programs
run out of virtual memory so one of the
easiest options is to gain more power is
to increase the ram.

it would be wonderful that all computers
could have a 64 megabyte chip and by simply
maxing out the virtual memory say to
4 gigabytes would make any computer into
a super computer with lots of memory - but
we aint' there yet.

the best way to improve performance is simply
have enough ram installed. too much ram
can be costly and probably a waste of money
for a regular pc user. too much virtual memory
will be costly to your computer and waste
valuable resources.


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

hmm? my previous posting was a draft
not sure why it got posted. however, i hope
this posting is better understood.....

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

the vm is a machine limitation.

in this case, the limitation is based on the physical memory size of
your
the ram chips. let's say you have a pc with 64 megabytes, of course
this is only an example.

the virtual memory was designed to help move data in and out of the
physical ram onto the disk in a special file called pagefile.sys

mathematically a 1 to 1 ratio could be used. so if you only have a
64 megabyte ram chip, then all it can mechanically move to and from
the pagefile.sys is 64 megabytes of data.

if one tries to set the size of a pagefile to a size 1000 megabytes, the
machine will still only use 64 megabytes because of the physical ram.

the above is only an example is an extreme only to help illustrate and
explain.

lets say that the vm has been set to a max size of 1000 megabytes
but you only have a 64 megabyte ram chip, then approximately 936
megabytes of disk space that can be used for regular data is instead
locked up /
reserved for vm eventhough the o.s. can't use it. frankly, most regular
computer users never use 50 percent of the virtual memory anyways. so
in
this example, most users would not use 50 megabytes of v.m.

however, powerusers, and high end graphics programs run out
of ram memory and virtual memory likewise, so one of the easiest
options is to gain more power is to increase the machines ram.

it would be wonderful that all computers could have a 64 megabyte
chip and by simply maxing out the virtual memory say to 4 gigabytes
would make any computer into a super computer with lots of memory - but
we aint' there yet.

the best way to improve performance is simply have enough ram installed.
unlike
my example of 64 megabytes, windows xp simply could not function with
this
limitation. most computers are optimized for 512 megabytes of ram.
they
might sell a pc with less ram, but it is done not only to reduce the
cost of a pc,
but is sufficient to run windows, excluding all other third party
softwares.

acquiring and purchasing more ram than a regular pc user needs
will likely be a waste of money for the regular pc user. at the same
time
havng too much virtual memory will be costly to your computer and waste
valuable resources.


--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[John John]

Why then are you telling users to set their pagefile to 2X RAM if the
system cannot use a pagefile any larger than the amount of installed
RAM? This last post of yours completely contradicts everything that you
always say about the pagefile.

John

 

[John John]

Same incorrect information as your other post. Readers would be well
advised to completely disregard your posts on the subject.

John

 

[Gerry]

Sorry DB you've gone off on a tangent and ignored the questions I
posted.

Thanks, however, for adjusting your line length.

To reduce the risk of accidentally sending Drafts uncheck Send Messages
Immediately -Tools, Options, Send. Your message was innocuous but if
you're fired up you can send a message saying something best left
unsaid.

The aspect of virtual memory you refer to as a machine limitation is
not! It is a default setting, which can be changed by the user.

When you refer to most users would not use 50 mb I think you will find
it more than likely that most do but not all of the time. However, I am
not aware of any published statistics. Usage is not a constant.

All users use some pagefile memory, whether they run out of RAM memory
or not. Adding RAM can reduce but not eliminate pagefile usage.

Your comments about the suitability of 512 mb are a generalisation. The
amount of RAM required for satisfactory performance depends on intended
use.

Before you reply to the questions I asked have a look at this Article:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

i think on one occasion i suggested
to set the vm at 2.5 the size of ram,
but should have been 1.5

however, in either case, these measurements
are simply a "marginal floor" and can
be reduced to 1.0 or even to .75 of the
ram size. it all depends on the experience
of the user to measure and make the decision
of what size is optimal for their unique setup.

as mentioned, regular pc users
may not even use 50 percent
of the virtual memory. so anyone
could set their vm size to .5 or 50% of the
ram size if they wanted to. and if it is too small
then windows will simply say so.

however, if someone wants to set their
vm to 4 gigabytes, then they are
free to do so as well. but again windows
will let the user know in one way
or another that the oversized vm will
reduce the performance of the system.

if optimizing the vm is too
complex than set it to system managed /
automatic mode and don't worry about it.

however, this mode doesn't work
for all pc's and it will produce a
"vm too low" message.

what should occur when the vm is
set to system managed mode
is automatically increase the vm size
if it is too low.

however, some pc's cannot do this
successfully for a number of reasons.

unfortunately, there is no one
size fits all for vm. some users may
not use all of it, while others will run out.

my postings and my perspective is one aspect
for setting the vm at a fixed size and having
control over it.

it's not really a big deal to use the custom
option and adjust the size of vm manually.

by manually controlling your the size of the
vm you can increase the size if you get a message
that it is too low or the pc seems to be sluggish
or decrease the size if the higher setting
seems to make your pc sluggish as well.

the margin that best determines if the vm
is too low or too high is at the "exact" size
of the physical ram. So if the vm size is set
a little higher or is set a little lower than
the exact size of your ram, it is not a big deal.

sorry if it sounds confusing, but
it can be because it is a balancing
act to optimize a pc for peak
performance.

however, in the dialog window
where the vm can be modified / adjusted
the system clearly provides the
min and the recommended max
on the lower half of the dialog.

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

"This is John.... I order everyone to disregard
the postings and suggestions of others. WHY?
because i say so, no further explanation is
necessary....."

the problem here is that mandating
to disregard information is notwithstanding
if you cannot provide something better or
provide the courtesy of your own explanations.

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

however, i did take the time to reaffirm my
position and make it a bit more clearer against
your sub thread. ideally, i will refrain from
responding to anyone else other than the o.p.

if anyone else has a question, then they are
free (literally free) to create a thread of their own
and receive answers from everyone including yours
that will help with their issue.

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

actually, although it seems you
are providing a courtesy, it was simply
an attempt to create controversy.

as far as I am concerned you can set the
vm to any size that you think is best for your system.

you seem somewhat reasonable therefore you would also have
reasoned that if I wanted your opinion i would have
asked for it.

I stand by my suggestion because it will help the
o.p., whether or not you like it. If you have strong
reservations about setting the vm at a fixed size, then
please forward them to the microsoft software engineers
so that they can remove the feature / option.

until then, i will continue to take advantage of
the option windows has provided and provide
it to computer users who are encountering
difficulties with their vm, similar to what
is described by "MICROSOFT":

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

sorry to trump you...

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[Gerry]

What trump would that be?

You've gone off on a tangent again. I repeat my questions!

Your statement "is too large and windows simply won't use all that
additional space. In fact, it actually degrades the performance of
the operating system and wasting valuable disk space as well." set me
wondering how you might justify what you have said!

Free disk space is valuable if you have insuffient and less or not
valuable if you have plenty! Explain how free disk space has to be
valuable?

Why would an overlarge pagefile degrade performance?


--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[John John]

The only further explanation necessary is that the "information" that
you present is completely inaccurate! One minute you tell users to set
their pagefile at 1.5 to 2x RAM then you tell us that Windows cannot use
a pagefile that is larger than the amount installed RAM, which begs the
question, "If Windows cannot use a pagefile larger than the installed
RAM why on earth are you telling users to set their pagefile to 2x RAM?"

Windows can use Multiple pagefiles on multiple spindles and it can use a
single or combined amounts of paging files that is many times the amount
of installed RAM. Whether or not users need that much paging capacity
is another matter altogether, the point here is that the information you
provide in these posts is *completely* inaccurate and readers looking
for reliable information should disregard the uninformed notions that
you posted!

John

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

for one thing,

the larger the pagefile is the
greater the fragmentation is -
This is a direct correlation.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/ : "An unfragmented paging file
leads to faster virtual memory access and to a greater chance of a
dump-file capture that is free of significant errors. "


While there are some systems whose performance
is negligible in spite of a fragmented disk, there are
still many pc's that have an inverse affect
between performance and fragmentation.

As I eluded to, power users know what
to expect from their own machines and know
how to maximize their available resources.

However my suggestion is made
to fix a fundamental problem with a
fundamental with low virtual memory messages
and presumably being produced
on a regular pc of regular pc users.


http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417 : For best performance, do not
set the initial size to less than the minimum recommended size under
Total paging file size for all drives. The recommended size is
equivalent to 1.5 times the RAM on your computer. It is good practice to
leave the paging file at its recommended size. However, you may increase
its size if you frequently use programs that use much memory.

Unfortunately my friend I need to move on,
I do appreciate that you did not result to
using demeaning language. Possibly that is
why I took the time to provide the above.

It seems that the information
above may not apply to your system
or to others who have higher expectations
from their systems.

Unfortunately, not everyone else may
be as fortunate.

Funny, I frown upon people who make
little issues like this into a major project
and thesis......

I will have to develop a method to express
and dismiss them in a polite manner next time....

<g>

 

[Gerry]

Your argument falls down if the pagefile is contiguous. See the Article
you quote. This is easily achieved when the pagefile is in it's own
partition on a second drive. It is less easy to achieve if you have a
single drive and free disk space is less than say 60%.

However, in some situations where you cannot add RAM memory you have to
increase the pagefile size or give up on trying to use the computer for
a purpose where large amounts of memory are required. Adding a second
hardrive, especially if you have an old one which remains in a usable
condition is the most economic way to proceed.

--



Hope this helps.

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

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

my intent is to help
the o.p. who has a fundamental
issue with a fundamental
resolution primarily from
the absolute source - Microsoft.

as far as i am concerned
i had long completed my
intent. however, i mistakenly
fell into the little trap you guys
enjoy playing.

unfortunately, you nor the other
respondent provided any assistance
or made any suggestions pursuant
to assisting the o.p.

however, you were successful
at hijacking the thread for your
own benefit and for argument sake

it is unfortunate, but if there
are any shortfalls to be considered
they are not mine and if there were
any tangents taken, they were not
mine as well.

the bottom line:

it is the o.p.'s criticism that counts.

unless you have a problem and
start a new thread seeking answers,
your criticisms of others has no value.

there will be no more pitiful
arguments from you, i trust.

--

<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

..

 

[jorgen]

however, i mistakenly
fell into the little trap you guys
enjoy playing.

I wouldn't call it a trap. A couple of guys pointed out that you've
misunderstood how the system works. It's better to have that cleared up
instead of going down a wrong road

 

[=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA]

I wouldn't call it a trap. A couple of guys pointed out that you've
misunderstood how the system works. It's better to have that cleared
up instead of going down a wrong road

the misunderstandings
are yours to have taken this road
and trolling onto this subthread to
show us how wise your are.

however, it is unfortunate for you that
you also showed us that
you were not wise enough to refrain
from the mal intent and instead provide
a professional response to the original question at hand.

Something for you to keep in mind:

"DO NOT ALTER MY POSTINGS OR
ANYONE ELSE'S FOR YOUR SARCASM"

you should have no misunderstanding now.

 

[Gerry]

No one is setting traps. All I have been trying to correct is the
misinformation you have been putting out.

You only made one post to the OP Trevor on the subject of virtual
memory!

--



Hope this helps.

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