Virtual Memory too low

R

rainbowcolors

--
Correction from previous..

an error message appears in the toolbar saying that the virtual memory is
too low and it will increase; but never does because it keeps appearing..
Hope this clears it up..
 
D

db.·.. >

go to the virtual memory
configuration window and
set it to custom with a
initial size=2 and max=1.5
times the size of your
ram.

example: if you have 1 gig
of ram, then set the max
to 1.5 gigs. however, there
is also a recommended size
provided by your operating
system and can be found
on that same window where
you set the size.

be sure to have only
1 pagefile as some
people set 2 or more.

then reboot.

in addition to the pagefile
system, you might also
benefit by a freeware
called pagedefrag.

it can be downloaded
from microsoft.com

here are some helpful
links:

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=virtual+memory+too+low

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/tips/default.mspx
 
G

Gerry

I would be interested in seeing a Disk Defragmenter report. Open Disk
Defragmenter and click on Analyse. Select View Report and click on Save
As and Save. Now find VolumeC.txt in your My Documents Folder and post a
copy. Do this before running Disk Defragmenter as it is more
informative.

Select Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk CleanUp to
Empty your Recycle Bin and Remove Temporary Internet Files. Also
select Start, All Programs, accessories, System Tools, Disk CleanUp,
More Options, System Restore and remove all but the latest System
Restore point. Run Disk Defragmenter.

--



Hope this helps.

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



rainbowcolors wrote:
 
A

Andrew E.

You might look at current ram memory that is installed,512mb or lower
is insufficient for xp.As for virtual-memory,in system properties,set C: to
"let system manage" click set 2X,close out,restart pc...
 
D

db.·.. >

actually, 256 is perfect
to run windows only.

and 512 is perfect to
run windows with regular
third party software.

further, the error message
the o.p. is receiving is the
result of the vm being in
automatic mode.

therefore, the suggestion
to leave it as is, is simply
telling the o.p. to put up
with the nagging problem
as posted.
 
L

Leonard Grey

In fact, the correct setting for virtual memory is "system managed size".

The amount of physical RAM needed to successfully run Windows XP depends
primarily on the memory demands of installed software and the user's
appetite for performance.

Generally speaking, the amount of RAM that would have been sufficient to
run XP Gold with reasonable performance is wholly insufficient to run
Windows XP today, for a user engaged in typical home activities
(internet, office, no gaming.)
 
G

Gerry

Leonard

"In fact, the correct setting for virtual memory is "system managed
size".

Argumentative, although many hold that view.

If the minimum and maximum pagefile sizes are not the same, the pagefile
will initially be allocated to the minimum size, then expanded as more
space is needed, up to the maximum. On most systems, this will mean
that the pagefile will be fragmented, possibly in widely separated parts
of the disk. If there is a significant amount of paging activity, this
can lead to unnecessary performance degradation. Setting the minimum
and maximum the same size may still result in a fragmented pagefile, but
does reduce the likelihood of serious fragmentation. If the system is
paging heavily and the pagefile is heavily fragmented, consider moving
the pagefile to a newly formatted partition on a separate disk
Source:
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm


~~~~


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

AJR

Message relating to "low virtual memory" (99% of the time) is a generic
message related to an application or utility which is not "releasing"
resouces wshen terminating. A reboot usually cures the problem.

The default size setting for for virtual memory is 1.5 time installed RAM.-
if Windows needs more it creates more on the HD or uses virtualized memory
in RAM.
 
D

db.·.. >

rebooting to resolve the
nagging problem is a
reasonable solution for
idiots.

also, 1.5 times is a
convenient formula used
in the old days but no longer
a true calculation.

if anything, the recommended
size provided by the o.s. is
a true-er number than
the 1.5 formula provides.

however, if anyone really wants
to be a scientist and analyze the
demands of "their" virtual memory
on "their" particular machine,
there are freewares that provide
the true/actual amount of virtual
memory being used.

in most cases, the actual amount
will be "much less" than what
the 1.5 formula produces.

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

lastly the manipulative
arguments that suggest the
vm "has" to be set to auto
mode are faulty ones.

if they were not then the
microsoft software engineers
would have omitted the custom
and no pagefile options from
the operating system.

therefore i stand by my suggestion
and successful experience by
setting the vm to a fixed/custom
size that alleviates problems
like that of the op's.

obviously there are chicken
littles that cannot ween
themselves off the "idiot"
proof options.


db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
 
A

AJR

Regarding ";;;also, 1.5 times is a
convenient formula used in the old days but no longer a true
calculation...." - not so - same "calculation" is stated in "Vista Resource
Kit", "Vista Inside and Out" and " Vista Administrators Consultant".

Performance/Resource Monitors in Vista provide sufficient data regarding
memory usage - as do utilites available from Microsoft via Sysinternals.

Regarding "...setting the vm to a fixed/custom
size that alleviates problems like that of the op's...." - from my
previous post "...Message relating to "low virtual memory" (99% of the time)
is a generic message related to an application or utility which is not
"releasing"
resouces when terminating....".

Also regarding "... lastly the manipulative arguments that suggest the vm
"has" to be set to auto mode are faulty ones...." - faulty? Not so - a
Microsoft recommendation.

You state "...Microsoft software engineers would have omitted the custom and
no pagefile options from the operating system...." - there are optional
methods for settings by IT/TechNet/MSDN, Geeks and Enterprise customers who
have a requiremnt to deviate from recommended settings.

As an example - Registry settings can be modified via the Control Panel
applets - yet Microsoft provides the Registry Editor.

Finally - Have a Good Day.
 
D

db.·.. >

the 1.5 is a formula
of convenience.

it is not wrong to suggest
it or faulty to recommend
it.

however if you or anyone
really wants an exact number
for the amount of pagefile/vm
the system uses, then simply
get it.

it is not hard to analyze it
nor faulty to ascertain some
elightenment.

you will likely find and
also prove to yourself that
your system will never
use more that a couple
hundred megs of pagefile
regardless if it is set to .5
or 1.5 or 10.5 the actual
size of your ram.

if you prove to yourself
that none of your software
demands more pagefile than
say half the size of your ram,
then setting your vm to half
the size won't cause any
problems. thus the argument
for the 1.5 formula will prove
to be more vm than necessary.

the only exception is for
specialty software that is
"engineered" to demand lots
of pagefile, like video or
graphics editors.

but in these cases, you will likely
need additional ram anyways as
per the software requirements,
thus the vm will also be
larger as well.

but for the most part, off
the shelf software is engineered
for the average user and the
average pc configuration.

lastly, your argument that
custom/fixed sizing of the
vm are for a certain class
of computer users is faulty.

the custom/fixed sizing of
the vm is for a certain class
of configuration where the
automatic resizing is not
managiable by windows
on some pc's.
 
T

Twayne

There are very few instances where setting the page file to a specific
size helps anything. Unless one is running a second pagefile on another
physical drive, it is always best to set it to let the System Manage
Size of the pagefile.

go to the virtual memory
configuration window and
set it to custom with a
initial size=2 and max=1.5
times the size of your
ram.

No. Max 1.5 can easily be too little! Besides, nothing here indicates
that the size should be set to anything but letting the system manage
it.
example: if you have 1 gig
of ram, then set the max
to 1.5 gigs. however, there
is also a recommended size
provided by your operating
system and can be found
on that same window where
you set the size.

That "recommended" size is nothing useful. It can be as bad as limiting
VM to 1.5 RAM. There simply are NO one size fits all sizes for
VM/pagefile, whatever you wish to call it.
be sure to have only
1 pagefile as some
people set 2 or more.

Careful: If there are 2 physical hard drives and the main pagefile is
set for other than the boot drive, the the pagefile on the boot drive
DOES need to be set small, in order to make the second pagefil useful.
That's a common method if increasing VM efficiency and speeding up page
file access times since it can happen in parallel with the OS instead of
serially if it's all on one drive.
Nothing here indicates the number of physical drives present or
whether the pagefile is set to the 2nd one.
then reboot.

in addition to the pagefile
system, you might also
benefit by a freeware
called pagedefrag.

No, not based on the informaiton provided. There is no indication of
pagefile fragmentation here. One shouldn't fiddle with things like that
for no reason.
it can be downloaded
from microsoft.com

here are some helpful
links:

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=virtual+memory+too+low

That article assumes there is a reason to not have used System Managed
Size and is mainly about specific problems such as Office problems etc..

A decent link, but ... nothing to do with the problem at hand.

HTH the OP,

Twayne


Actually, it does do it. It's just that after increasing it once it
finds it needs to do it yet agan. And again. And ...
 
T

Twayne

actually, 256 is perfect
to run windows only.

No, not on today's XP. XP will run, but just barely, not well, and
slowly.
and 512 is perfect to
run windows with regular
third party software.

512 is the actual lower limit for running XP and "simple", non-memory
intensive apps with little or no multi-tasking being asked for. It has
nothing to do with being "third party software" or not.
further, the error message
the o.p. is receiving is the
result of the vm being in
automatic mode.

If by automatic mode you mean system managed size, then you are wrong.
What led you to that conclusion? I never saw it mentioned in the thread
here I'm pretty sure and if it was, it's disappeared from the posts. I
started reading right from the OP's original posting.
therefore, the suggestion
to leave it as is, is simply
telling the o.p. to put up
with the nagging problem
as posted.

I don't recall anyone saying to leave it as is. If you're relating that
back to system managed size, you're stretching just a little bit too
far; the OP didn't say it was set to system managed size. In fact,
everything said indicated otherwise in what was a post with far too
little input, resulting in several pieces of misinformation, such as you
have here, being given in responses.
Please stop doing that.

If there is no second physical disk that the pagefile has been set to,
that that is the correct response. If ther eis a 2nd drive, then the
first pagefile needs to be minimized so the other one picks up the work.

That clearly indicates other than a system managed size for the
pagefile. Is there another pagefile? Or was there at one time and it
was removed? Just guessing here.
 
T

Twayne

Leonard
"In fact, the correct setting for virtual memory is "system managed
size".

Argumentative, although many hold that view.

If the minimum and maximum pagefile sizes are not the same, the
pagefile will initially be allocated to the minimum size, then
expanded as more space is needed, up to the maximum. On most
systems, this will mean that the pagefile will be fragmented,
possibly in widely separated parts of the disk. If there is a
significant amount of paging activity, this can lead to unnecessary
performance degradation. Setting the minimum and maximum the same
size may still result in a fragmented pagefile, but does reduce the
likelihood of serious fragmentation. If the system is paging heavily
and the pagefile is heavily fragmented, consider moving the pagefile
to a newly formatted partition on a separate disk Source:
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm

It would take a nearly full or never defragged disk for this to be very
meaningful. If you notice, when you do a defrag, the area of the
pagefile is NOT just the lower limit; it encompasses the usual
approximately 1.5 x RAM size. The OS is also smart enough to not write
data up against the page file at both ends; take a closer look at it
with a good disk reader (not MS's defrag pics).

No, still not a good enough reason to set limits. All that really does
is indicate why defrags should be performed periodically and shows why
in some instances an app might seem to slow down while in others it
doesn't. Also in the case of a pagefile being made larger because it
needs more space, the very same fragmentation is going to happen anyway.

Twayne
 
T

Twayne

rebooting to resolve the
nagging problem is a
reasonable solution for
idiots.

That wasn't the point; but I guess idiots might miss points.

....
lastly the manipulative
arguments that suggest the
vm "has" to be set to auto
mode are faulty ones.

if they were not then the
microsoft software engineers
would have omitted the custom
and no pagefile options from
the operating system.

therefore i stand by my suggestion
and successful experience by
setting the vm to a fixed/custom
size that alleviates problems
like that of the op's.

Wow, you are just full of misinformation today. There ARE situations
where controlling the size of the pagefile is recommended, even needed.
Actually there are several situations where one would want to set the
size of the pagefile limits. In keeping with your methodologies here
though, I will conveniently neglect to explain further as it has become
evident there is a close mind here.

Oh, and it's not automatic, it's system managed.
obviously there are chicken
littles that cannot ween
themselves off the "idiot"
proof options.

Idiot proof options are exactly what the world needs. If they are idiot
proof, that means they can not be screwed up, so that is a well
intentioned goal. But very few things are idiot proof, and you've done
a great job of demonstrating that with a lot of statements you have no
actual experience with but tend to use the parrot and guess-by-golly
methods.

Rather than just disagree and say your opinion/s are different, you
cointinue to insist that the entire population needs to think as you do.
'Tain't that simple.

AJR's comments, BTW, are right on. If/when an app fails to return
memory to the system, it does require a reboot to correct that problem.
On some occasions it can even require a Cold Boot because the speed of a
Warm Boot (Restart) doesn't allow RAM to actually completely reset
itself for proper initialization.

Twayne
 
T

Twayne

the 1.5 is a formula
of convenience.

No, it is, and admittedly so by Microsoft, an empirical number derived
over long periods of time and backed up by calculated usages and memory
requirements. IIRC it was based on using windows with Microsoft
applications such as Office for normal everyday cycles of work,
including the use of Outlook. There IS a basis for the number.
it is not wrong to suggest
it or faulty to recommend
it.

It is, in the manner you have been doing it.
however if you or anyone
really wants an exact number
for the amount of pagefile/vm
the system uses, then simply
get it.

It's not simple. One needs a certain minimum level of expertise and
knowledge to get an accurate reading of possible needs under varying
conditions.
it is not hard to analyze it
nor faulty to ascertain some
elightenment.

Except you aren't heeding your own postulations here.
you will likely find and
also prove to yourself that
your system will never
use more that a couple
hundred megs of pagefile
regardless if it is set to .5
or 1.5 or 10.5 the actual
size of your ram.

BS. My pagefile is system managed. Right now it's sitting at 259 Meg
used; it displays in a hidden toolbar whenever I want to look at it.
Before I upped the amount of RAM in my system it wasn't unusual for the
pagefile to reach close to a Gig if I had several things going on at
once or had video rendering taking place. It would often sit at around
600 Meg and one time it reached 2.3 Gig on me and I was NOT rendering
video; just had a lot of apps busy. It seemed like it took forever for
it to release the memory back to the system.
ON a system such as I have now, with more RAM (just a Gig & a half),
the pagefile size typically sits around 170 Meg; enough to keep it
occupied so that "real" pagefile operations will occur on the second
physical hard drive, which now barely gets used. And which is not
fragmented, by the way. The pf number is steady, cpu occupation is
about 9%, so that indicates everything right now is pretty minimal and
nothing but a few background tasks are taking place. Actual space
allocation is seen as around 2 Gig on the drive and there are no sectors
up against it at either end.
if you prove to yourself
that none of your software
demands more pagefile than
say half the size of your ram,
then setting your vm to half
the size won't cause any
problems. thus the argument
for the 1.5 formula will prove
to be more vm than necessary.

Boy, you live in a fantasy world, I think.
the only exception is for
specialty software that is
"engineered" to demand lots
of pagefile, like video or
graphics editors.

Good grief, there are LOTS of other applications can be memory
intensive. Any spreadsheet type program with lots of calculations,
anyting with a lot of DDE goings on, multiple instance of the same
programs, etc. etc. etc..
but in these cases, you will likely
need additional ram anyways as
per the software requirements,
thus the vm will also be
larger as well.

No, pagefile USAGE will be larger. The overall pagefile size won't
likely need to be changed by the system to anything larger than it is.
but for the most part, off
the shelf software is engineered
for the average user and the
average pc configuration.

No, it's "engineered" to require the amount that makes it run most
efficiently and within the confines of the operating system and that's
all. Developers don't take into consideration the amount of RAM, VM,
etc. etc. as they write their apps.
lastly, your argument that
custom/fixed sizing of the
vm are for a certain class
of computer users is faulty.

No, it definitely is not faulty. Your thinking is though, and quite
flawed to boot.
the custom/fixed sizing of
the vm is for a certain class
of configuration where the
automatic resizing is not
managiable by windows
on some pc's.

Wow, where the hell you meant to go with that is beyond me! Sounds like
the Peter Principle becoming much more obvious here, not that it's the
first time it's been evident.

Twayne
 
G

Gerry

Twayne

When you read what is written you might be qualified to comment.


~~~~


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

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads


Top