I have 512MB of RAM in my system... can I disable Virtual Memory?

[Whitedog]

I suppose the best overall option (if you have 256+ ram) is to just tell Windows to manage it and use the CFSU setting.

If a program "doesn't require it" then it will use Ram... If it does, than it will increase your swap file accordingly.

I ran my WinME/384MB for over a month with VM disabled and it simply Rocked. Though I didn't run every application mentioned here. Sacrafice to name one.

My .02, if the game "requires" Xmb swap file to even run, that's just plain piss poor programming. :|

Deus Ex would whine about wanting a swap file when I tried it with 256 megs ram with VM disabled, but I upped it to 384 megs ram with VM still disabled, and it Ran great! Played it all the way through.

I don't use 9x anymore, so I can't give any further testemony on this, only what I did back then.

Performance was never Greater than when I was running VM disabled. But I suppose if you have whinney software, that's not the ticket for you.

For those wondering, you can't disable paging on 2000. Setting the minimum is a hit and miss. You'll get nasty comments if you set the minimum below 20.

I've had both my work PC and home PC set at 100 minimum for 3 or 4 months now and haven't had any complaints from Lord Windows.

 

[maxcom]

"Deus Ex would whine about wanting a swap file when I tried it with 256 megs ram with VM disabled"
Is this idicative of "whinney programming"? just curious . very informative thread.



Tom

 

[element]

One thing that makes no sense to me is the old: set it to 1.5-2.0X the amount of RAM in your system. This means the more RAM you have, the bigger the swap file you need? Does that make sense to you? I would think the more RAM you have the LESS swap file you need.

 

[Whitedog]

I agree Element, but "MS logic" would probably be something like, if you had your ram loaded down and decided to load another huge app, it should be able to dump everything into swap, to free up the mem for the other app..
Just my guess, and sounds retarded too... so I'm probably wrong.

I know for sure, if you don't use CFSU=1 and have GOBS of RAM, Windows WILL use GOBS of hard drive for swapp.

Though, I've never heard of 1.5x? or 2x??????? Generaly, MS says you need you MEM+10Megs. I don't think it can use more VM than that...?

maxcom, Yes, I agree also, crappy programming... being the game only requires 64 megs ram to play. So 64 megs even with a large swap file of 128 is STILL less than 256 Physical ram which I had... lol.

MUST HAVE SWAP FILE!!! Bah!

I just wish they (MS) would pull their heads out their holes and realize Windows CAN operate without a swap file and design it so it CAN!

 

[Davegod75]

so whitedog..i have 512mb on w2k..should i just set the min and max for VM to like 20mb or something. ANything else i should do?

 

[ElCuCuy]

element...as it's been said, the swapfile was meant for a DOS environment when the user had 4mb RAM, 8mb if he was wealthly, and 16mb if he was god. With 4mb of RAM, you needed a 10-15mb swapfile for daily use. Since RAM is so cheap, and thus incredibly plentiful, VM sizes should be quite a bit smaller than the amount of physical memory you have. For example, I have 384mb RAM and I'm in win2k pro, I use a 120mb fixed swapfile, and I've had no errors, including with heavy photoshop use, UT, q3, CS etc.

 

[ElCuCuy]

Dave, just see how low you can go, and depending on what type of proggies you use, you might be required to set it higher. It is recommended, however, to go below 40-60mb VM...

 

[Davegod75]

is or isn't ?

 

[Turbopit]

Something isn't right. I did the CSWU=1 and set windows to manage swap file. It was stated that with enough ram, swap file should remain at 0. How much is enough? I have 256 megs. Right now in Win98 I have 3 browsers, outlook, norton system doctor, and a few background things running like motherboard monitor. Right now my swap file is 100 and norton is also reporting 102 megs af free physical memory.

 

[spycatcher old]

Once you set min and max to the same 128MB or whatever you can use Norton Utilities to put the .swp file first on your hard drive too for fastest access.

 

[Guygye]

<< If it isn't broken, don't fix it. >>

Are you sure you're talking about windows here. Thats the funniest thing I've read all day.

 

[sitka]

Windows 2000 memory regs tweaks

HERE

OOPS

HERE HERE

 

[Whitedog]

uhmmm, whether the swapfile is continuous, or fragmented, or on the beginning or middle of a hard drive, it is so minute of a difference you can't hardly notice.

One thing most people don't realize, is that when windows uses the swap file, it does a complete seek for each 4k blocks. So if Windows pages 400k of data, it actually reads 4k of data 100 times.

The misconception about continuous swapfile making your system perform better is false. The only binefit of having a continuous swapfile would be only one thing I can think of. If you let windows manage your VM and your system sits at idle, Windows will start purging data from win386. read it here from Microsoft.
If you think this helps your hard drive from becoming fragmented, think again. Even if it were continuous, stuff like temporary files will be filling and making holes all over your hard drive.

Actually, I would see a &quot;Windows managed&quot; swapfile benificial, for the reason that windows will make use of those &quot;holes&quot; in your data in and/or around your system files.

There are always holes near the front end of your drive, and Windows will always use this space for the swapfile.

IF it were better to have a fixed, continuous swapfile, Windows would recommend setting it up this way for you wouldn't you think? I would.

Read here what Microsoft says.

Windows 2000 I recommend about 100 meg minumum pagefile. Don't set the maximum the same, leave it high (whatever Windows has it set to).
Dave, I think he meant it &quot;isn't&quot; recommended to go below....

 

[skemlawn]

a fair amount of apps like the swap file. For instance UT won't fire up on my system (256 megs ram)without the swap file being at least 200 megs. I say just start it at 256 then work your way down until you start getting errors and what not do to the swap file set too low.

Worst case senerio (sp?) is that you will have to boot up in safe mode to switch the swap file to a bigger size.

 

[Whitedog]

<<a fair amount of apps like the swap file. For instance UT won't fire up on my system (256 megs ram)without the swap file being at least 200 megs. >>

I'm not a programmer, but I think I might be able to add to this from some things I know...

First, you have to think that with 256MB ram, why would the game require you ahve so much VM...?

&quot;I believe&quot; what happens, the program begins to load, it looks at how much RAM you have, then begins to load as much as it thinks it can use (the more RAM, the more it can load). Then it comes to a point where it has loaded as much as it can use. THEN it looks at what you have left (free RAM) and if it doesn't have enough to Page files into it during gameplay (based on what it has loaded into MEMORY already, it will require you to have the space available in VM!

NOW, let's assume the program loads ALL it can into RAM, then looks at available FREE memory, and see's you have enough FREE memory to swap data out also... It's not going to use VM, it will use the Physical RAM instead...

With your statement about UT, I will add my experiences... Deus Ex (which uses the UT engine) did the same to me, with 256 megs ram, it required VM to play... &quot;lots of it&quot; (I tried to load it with VM disabled)...
Setting VM back to disabled, and adding an additional 128MB (384 total), I was able play the game with Zero swapfile.

Probably not all programs will work like this, but I think most (99%) do.

<<I bet u haven't play a new and exciting game: Sacrifice from Shiny Entertainment
The game required AT LEAST 96 meg of swapfile no matter how much your phisycal RAM is. I have 512 of RAM, and I fixed my swapfile to 128meg. >>

Perhaps this game just has the capabilities to utilize TONS of memory (I don't know how big this game is), but I would be willing to wager that this game might play with VM disabled with 768, or 1024MB RAM!...?

If the game can load upwards of 300MB's of data into memory when loading, then yes, it will error out with only 512MB ram and you have VM disabled... But with 768 it won't!

 

[Taz4158]

<< I suppose the best overall option (if you have 256+ ram) is to just tell Windows to manage it and use the CFSU setting. >>


Yep, had a 0 byte swapfile for ages now and performance is extremely good.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I run 384 megs of RAM with no swapfile, one limitation that win98SE or older has, is that it can only address and use up to 128MB of ram (it can use more but it cannot manage more). People Bash WindowsME all the time, but it can manage a whole lot more than 128 (over 512), that is one thing MS fixed from SE to ME. Swap files are proably one of the most debated topics where even the so called EXPERTS do not know what the hell they are talking about, because they themselves have been told that BS and beleived it. Don't get me wrong the swap file does have its place, but I would not use it if i had over 256megs of ram(unless of course i was a hog and wanted over 50 open windows and tasks going on at one time). I never once run out of memmory, that is one thing WinME does a better job on too, its management is improved, WinMe is a bit more than just a simple Third Edition, they did do some tweaking. I am very happy with WinMe. I agree with whitedog 100% and always have, the swap file settings are a joke, buy more ram and disable the swap file.

 

[Whitedog]

sitka, thanks for the link to 3d spotlight.. good info on the windows 2000 section.

ArchAngel777, amen brutha.

 

[Diatribe]

I'm actually in the elite group of &quot;1 Gig Ram&quot; Group

I remember when I upped from 768 to 1 gig. I was still running a 256 meg swap. Figured &quot;WTH, might as well keep something....&quot; and then I upped another 256 megs (whopping 88$ for me) and was like &quot;Heck, Winbloze won't need any freakin' swapfile...what have I been thinking!??!&quot; So I disabled it and got a TON of errors from games...some refusing to even load up. Stinking things WANTED a swap file and I had to put one in, just to get it to run. ARGH

But...my recent purchases of my yummy 21&quot; Sony and another 256 megs of ram (hey, I use 3D Studio Max and Photoshop, so it IS needed). have been GREAT! for me.

Diatribe

 

[BFG10K]

Disabling VM is almost as dumb as disabling your CPU's level 2 cache. VM is part of the memory management heirarchy and you're simply getting in the way of Windows if you disable it. I've never known so many people to be so paranoid about a little paging.

Guygye:

Are you sure you're talking about windows here.

I'm positive.

ArchAngel777:

one limitation that win98SE or older has, is that it can only address and use up to 128MB of ram (it can use more but it cannot manage more).

That is absolute rubbish. Windows 98 SE has no trouble effectively utilising more than 128 MB of RAM. My machine has 192 MB RAM and I've used another machine with 384 MB RAM running 98 SE as well, and they both work well.

 

[Davegod75]

thanks

 

[Whitedog]

<<That is absolute rubbish. Windows 98 SE has no trouble effectively utilising more than 128 MB of RAM. My machine has 192 MB RAM and I've used another machine with 384 MB RAM running 98 SE as well, and they both work well. >> Or the same?

Sorry BFG, but that just blew your credibility with me. I know better than that.
I've never read where Win98 can properly manage more than 128 megs.. that's been a known since MS rolled it out.

Don't worry ArchAngel777, I know you know what you're talking about.

 

[Turbopit]

Can somebody shed some light on my problem above? It just seems like my system is using up too much memory. It's swapping almost imediately after start up.


Thanks for an suggestions.

 

[Nessism]

Some say yes, some say no. For another opinion check out Rojak's Swapfile Optimization Guide.

 

[Whitedog]

I probably should have limited my claims of testing to WinME since I haven't run Win98 in like... a long time, and certainly didn't do any kind of test like this back then.

I did make claims about disabling VM in Win98, I should have said WinME instead, as I know it manages memory well enough to do so as obviosly Win98 doesn't.

No pun BFG