Virtual Memory

[Iron1384]

I've been wondering about this. I have 640 MB of RAM, and have been running WinXP with the paging file disabled. I heard that going without Virtual Memory on is good(If you have enough memory). Am I right to have it disabled? Or am I just unknowingly shooting myself in the foot?

[thcdru2k]

you certinaly have enough, anything past 512, and you should disable it.

[VeritechK7]

head on over to arsforums and they'll give you the right answer ..look for any posts containing driver guru or jeh @ 2cpu ....he has extensive posts on virtual memory concerning NT family OSes.. my personal thing is .. leave it on .. . it's beter than getting out of virtual memory messages

[Renzo]

Actually some software or games *require* virtual memory to be enabled. I'd say set it to some static amount, like 16MB or 64MB but anything above that would be just wasting HD or so.

[VeritechK7]

not necessarily ..i would say ...go w/ what windows says ...and the thing is ..once the page file grows... the size stays there until a reboot is done .. so it's not likje the swap file of say the 9x family oses

[Iron1384]

I've been hearing different things in this post. Why would I want to use my hard drive like RAM, when the real RAM is faster?? (Not that my hard drive is slow, WD800JB:p)

[VeritechK7]

well here's the thing ... as your ram size grows ..show should your page file .

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=1350938374

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=12009443&m=1640920235

it's how NT family OSes work bud

[Renzo]

Originally posted by Iron1384
I've been hearing different things in this post. Why would I want to use my hard drive like RAM, when the real RAM is faster?? (Not that my hard drive is slow, WD800JB:p)
There was some stupid reason for swapfile being 2,5 times the amount of installed RAM, but this is really old information and was used back in 1995-1998 when there was only 128MB of RAM or less.

And like I said some software needs the swapfile to be present.

Anyway you can use common sense and think yourself. Windows defaults are never good, especially when it comes to filecache (Windows9x) and swapfile/pagingfile (every single windows).

I use 64MB static swap (min & max the same size) with 512MB RAM on Win98 and Win2k.

[VeritechK7]

why risk out of vmem errors? read the links I posted?

[Kruno]

I have been using XP with VM disabled for over 6 months now. NP whatsoever. Morrowind doesn't tell me to enable it nor does Paintshop Pro 7. It works much faster than with VM enabled plus MW feels smoother.

Whichever dank said MW doesn't work with paging file disabled must get that crack pipe out of his mouth :D

[VeritechK7]

I didn't say that ;) .but anyways..typically that's just page file ... and you seem to have the ram to limit the page hits anyways ..but I guess you're not a big multitasker...go into task manager and select the virtual memory column under processes.. and let me know of the vmem size if any is being used ...

[Iron1384]

Every process listed is using VM. It tends to be just less than half the amout of memory listed in the Mem Usage column.

[VeritechK7]

is that your normal load? and if so, do you go beyond that every once and awhile?

[Iron1384]

This is idle. I looked at the usage before opening any major programs. I'll run some games, then check again.


(I did notice one thing, with VM turned on, Outlook Express opens much quicker than before.)

[VeritechK7]

interesting ;)

[Iron1384]

After running BF1942, the VM is being used a lot more than before; it jumped to 953 Mb! My system is only using about 100 mb of my 640 mb's of RAM. I have a feeling that my computer is wasting time copying data to and from the HDD, when it could all be held in the RAM.

[VeritechK7]

well it 's more the app than system itself ...i'd say blame the programmer .. :p

[Renzo]

Originally posted by VeritechK7
why risk out of vmem errors? read the links I posted?
With 512MB mem and 64MB swap I have had 0 virtual memory errors. If I get one some day, I'll just add another 64MB to the swap.

[VeritechK7]

I guess you're not a real multitasker eh?


http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/?File=Pagefile.TXT

[StealthHawk]

that's so ridiculous, it's time MS started optimizing things for high amounts of RAM. we're long past the days when 64MB of RAM was considered excessive and came along with a high price tag.

[The Baron]

VM is absolutely necessary--go try running PS7 (not PSP7) with no virtual memory. Ouch.

[Kruno]

Dudes, M$ have optimised XP for large amounts of ram. Once I get rid of 1 stick of it and have 512MB of ram the speed is dislikable :/ (I don't mean falls drastically, I mean I dislike the speed)

I stick with 768MB or more under XP :D

I do multitaks, listen to MP3 using winamp 3, play some games while at it. Kepp my Pheonix (mozzila) browser open even trillian someitmes.

[The Baron]

phoenix... been meaning to try that, haven't gotten around to it

[Renzo]

Originally posted by =SSC=The Baron
VM is absolutely necessary--go try running PS7 (not PSP7) with no virtual memory. Ouch.
That's why PS7 has it's own scratch disk option under preferences. It doesn't need Windows swap.

[VeritechK7]

don't confuse the page file as the swap