Optimize XP - A Windows XP Optimization Guide

[GeneralAres]

Also fragmentation of the pagefile does not degrade performance

You guys have already made enough rediculous comments for a lifetime. No thanks.

 

[KoolDrew]

You guys have already made enough rediculous comments for a lifetime. No thanks.

You are the only one who has made ridiculous comments here and cannot admit he is wrong and actually learn something instead of thinking you know everything. You could actually learn something from a few people here such as Nothinman that would be benefitial to you if you would quit acting like a total idiot and arguing with the facts...

I can also tell from the email you sent me you are a complete idiot.

Its quite obvious at 15 you have a lot ot learn. Start off by refraining from pathetic words like tweaker, using them makes you seem like the amatuer you are. Fragmentation of the Pagefile does degrade performance. I know facts are hard to accept but I've learned people at your age don't listen and think they know everything, you will grow out of it. Then again maybe you will not.

I have alot to learn yet you do not even know what VM is. Also you are the one who is not acepting the facts and is not listeneing when many people here such as myself and Nothinman have given you the facts.

I think you are the one who thinks you know everything. Not me....

 

[GeneralAres]

Also fragmentation of the pagefile does not degrade performance

This isn't a fact, its wrong. Also I've provided clear evidence as to the understood definition. You guys have nothing but what you are typing.

I'm not the one arguing facts you guys are:

Microsoft The Windows 2000 Server Operation Guide:
Part No. 097-0002722

Page 698:
Virtual Memory:
The Space on the hard disk that Windows 2000 uses as memory, the amount of memory taken from the perspective of a process can be much greater than the actual physical memory in the computer. The operating system does this in a way that is transparent to the application, by paging data that does not fit in physical memory to and from the disk at any given instant.


Page 298:
Set the Same Initial and Maximum Size:
Setting the pagings file's initial size and maximum size to the same value increases efficiency because the operating system does not need to expand the file during processing. Setting different values for initial and maximum size can contribute to disk fragmentation.

And Mark Russovich's Site:

Pagedefrag

One of the limitations of the Windows NT/2000 defragmentation interface is that it is not possible to defragment files that are open for exclusive access. Thus, standard defragmentation programs can neither show you how fragmented your paging files or Registry hives are, nor defragment them. Paging and Registry file fragmentation can be one of the leading causes of performance degradation related to file fragmentation in a system.

 

[KoolDrew]

This isn't a fact, its wrong. Also I've provided clear evidence as to the understood definition. You guys have nothing but what you are typing.

Where? I don't see any evedince..

I'm not the one arguing facts you guys are:

Microsoft The Windows 2000 Server Operation Guide:
Part No. 097-0002722

Page 698:
Virtual Memory:
The Space on the hard disk that Windows 2000 uses as memory, the amount of memory taken from the perspective of a process can be much greater than the actual physical memory in the computer. The operating system does this in a way that is transparent to the application, by paging data that does not fit in physical memory to and from the disk at any given instant.


Page 298:
Set the Same Initial and Maximum Size:
Setting the pagings file's initial size and maximum size to the same value increases efficiency because the operating system does not need to expand the file during processing. Setting different values for initial and maximum size can contribute to disk fragmentation.

Did you not read the above posts where we already discussed this??

 

[GeneralAres]

Did you read the book that provides the facts I listed? Your OPINION on something is not a FACT.

 

[KoolDrew]

Your OPINION on something is not a FACT.

There is no opinions involved in what Virtul Memory is. What everyone here has said is the facts while you are just misinformed and cannot accept the fact that you are wrong. I know facts are hard to accept but I've learned that "tweakers" like yourself think they know everything.

 

[GeneralAres]

You can probably find the book at your local Borders.

 

[KoolDrew]

IF you want here are some defenitions

A program instruction on an Intel 386 or later CPU can address up to 4GB of memory, using its full 32 bits. This is normally far more than the RAM of the machine. (The 32nd exponent of 2 is exactly 4,294,967,296, or 4 GB. 32 binary digits allow the representation of 4,294,967,296 numbers ? counting 0.) So the hardware provides for programs to operate in terms of as much as they wish of this full 4GB space as Virtual Memory, those parts of the program and data which are currently active being loaded into Physical Random Access Memory (RAM). The processor itself then translates (?maps?) the virtual addresses from an instruction into the correct physical equivalents, doing this on the fly as the instruction is executed. The processor manages the mapping in terms of pages of 4 Kilobytes each - a size that has implications for managing virtual memory by the system.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

Also from the same site:

Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really large machine?

Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be ?turned off.? What is meant by such wording is ?set the system to use no page file space at all.?

If Virtual memory is the pagefile how would that make any sense?

An imaginary memory area supported by some operating systems (for example, Windows but not DOS) in conjunction with the hardware. You can think of virtual memory as an alternate set of memory addresses. Programs use these virtual addresses rather than real addresses to store instructions and data. When the program is actually executed, the virtual addresses are converted into real memory addresses.

The purpose of virtual memory is to enlarge the address space, the set of addresses a program can utilize. For example, virtual memory might contain twice as many addresses as main memory. A program using all of virtual memory, therefore, would not be able to fit in main memory all at once. Nevertheless, the computer could execute such a program by copying into main memory those portions of the program needed at any given point during execution.

To facilitate copying virtual memory into real memory, the operating system divides virtual memory into pages, each of which contains a fixed number of addresses. Each page is stored on a disk until it is needed. When the page is needed, the operating system copies it from disk to main memory, translating the virtual addresses into real addresses.

The process of translating virtual addresses into real addresses is called mapping. The copying of virtual pages from disk to main memory is known as paging or swapping.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/v/virtual_memory.html

Also as you can tell from that last sentence Virtual Memory and the pagefile are related, but are NOT the same thing..

If you want I can even find more where Virtual Memory is defined correctly since you seem to think the sources you posted are correct.

You can probably find the book at your local Borders.

I would sure love to have a book the defines Virtual Memory incorrectly...

 

[GeneralAres]

You never know you may learning something.

 

[MrChad]

GeneralAres, I respect the posts you've made because you've supported them with excerpts from some reputable sources. However, I would also like to add that while you may dismiss many of your replies as "opinions" from a random forum member, be aware that many folks on this board, including Nothinman, are extremely knowledgeable about operating systems and memory management. Their opinion deserves your respect.

The topic of pagefiles and pagefile "tweaking" tips has been discussed many, many times on this board. Many helpful members have tried to set the record straight on what a pagefile is, how it differs from virtual memory, and how Windows manages it. Microsoft employees themselves (Stash, kylef et. al.) have chimed in on these discussions. The general consensus from these experts is that the pagefile management is best left to Windows.

 

[GeneralAres]

I've met alot of "experts" online as well. Also Microsoft Employees who hold low end positions at Microsoft, helpdesk ect... While I'm sure the majority of posters are easily pursuaded when someone throws up a bunch of what "appears" complex information they copied out of some book or another web site or another forum, I'm not. They immediately get tagged "Expert". I'm not interested in their opinions. I have the facts right in front of me and was easily able to link to reputable sources to back up my position. Anyone can purchase the book I quoted from if they do not believe me. I'm sure the dynamics of Virtual Memory addressing are really interesting to those writing Page File algorithms and obviously self proclaimed experts. Here it is being used to make certain forum members further their Elitist mentality. That IMO is sad. Not only that when shown documented proof they ignore it. I'm sure they will continue to spam their same ignorance of the facts. It does not surprise me they are Linux users since I have come to expect this elitist mentality from them.

 

[Nothinman]

It does not surprise me they are Linux users since I have come to expect this elitist mentality from them.

Odd considering you're the one who started out on this forum spamming a "tweak" page and calling us elitist. I bet the only reason you attack Linux users is because you couldn't figure it out yourself and now you're bitter.

 

[GeneralAres]

Thats why I'm running Fedora on another PC?

 

[Nothinman]

I don't know that you are, you're not a credible source to me, you'll have to get your friend Mark to put it in his next book before I believe it =)

And having it installed and actually understanding and using it are very different things.

 

[GeneralAres]

I don't know Mark personally but I do know his work is respected in the field by Professionals who do this for a living, unlike self proclaimed forum experts who are good at cutting and pasting and claiming reputable sources wrong to make themselves seem smarter then they are. Same story, different forum.

 

[CTho9305]

If you look at the Sysinternal page you'll see that Mark also wrote 'contig', an app to defragment a single file. Why do you think he wrote that one? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the built-in defrag tool to defrag all of the non-special files?

Actually, no. There are situations where the built-in defragger is extra slow due to large fragmented files - I've found that using contig on the worst files results in a much faster overall defrag. Why the built-in defragger doesn't do this automagically I have no idea.

 

[Nothinman]

unlike self proclaimed forum experts who are good at cutting and pasting

Wow, you just described yourself.

Actually, no. There are situations where the built-in defragger is extra slow due to large fragmented files - I've found that using contig on the worst files results in a much faster overall defrag. Why the built-in defragger doesn't do this automagically I have no idea.

I never said there was no cases for it's use, but do you really sit there and watch the defragger as it works on your drive?

 

[GeneralAres]

How old are you?

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

unlike self proclaimed forum experts who are good at cutting and pasting

Wow, you just described yourself.

Actually, no. There are situations where the built-in defragger is extra slow due to large fragmented files - I've found that using contig on the worst files results in a much faster overall defrag. Why the built-in defragger doesn't do this automagically I have no idea.

I never said there was no cases for it's use, but do you really sit there and watch the defragger as it works on your drive?

No, but I can't compile while it's defragging (well, I can.... but it's really slow), so faster defrags are better. If I were smart I'd just let it go over night. Also, contig works fine when you're low on disk space (<15% free) but the built-in app complains (and takes even longer). Fragmentation is worst when I'm low on disk space.

 

[Nothinman]

How old are you?

I assume you mean me, and probably older than you think.

 

[GeneralAres]

Cryptic Answer, why would I expect anything less.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Wow, GeneralAres played the Encarta card and then clearly trumps Nothinman by questioning his age. I shall no longer browse reputable websites for technical information and will only believe what I hear from "Teh General!"

:roll:

*checks his World Book encyclopedia set for the definition of Virtual Memory*

 

[GeneralAres]

Actually I checked the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server Operations Guide. Encarta was just for fun. Here you can buy it on Amazon.

 

[CTho9305]

GeneralAres, that doesn't necessarily count. I don't have the book, nor do I care enough about enlightening someone so stubbon to spend money on a book. Why doesn't it count? I'd suspect that the quotes you pulled came from some section about configuration dialogs - so it's effectively saying, "On this dialog, we see the words 'Virtual Memory' - and what you're changing when you play with the setting is <blah>". Feel free to provide more context if it is in fact presenting that as a definition of Virtual Memory (in which case the book sucks).

 

[Sunner]

So General, since we're all lying and/or incorrect, how about that little article over at kerneltrap that I posted? Is that guy wrong as well?
I mean, he's only involved in porting an OS to an architecture without an MMU, I think that might require some knowledge of how memory management works, no?

Now here's an interesting link by the way...
MSDN article.
Since you don't seem to read links people post, I'll just copy&paste one interesting part.

Windows CE supports a subset of the virtual memory functions available under Win32. Windows CE implements most of the virtual memory functions that are supported in Windows NT, with the exception of the VirtualXxxEx APIs, which manipulate virtual memory in other processes. Also, because Windows CE does not feature paging file support, it does not implement the VirtualLock and VirtualUnlock functions.

So, according to your definition of Virtual Memory, Windows CE supports it...only not?