Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Paging File Location and size???

Last response: in Storage
Share
June 9, 2007 4:57:48 AM

E6600
2 gigs
7900GTX
1.raptor 74g (2 particions first for windows,second for games)

2.hard 80g (2 particions only storage)

What do I have to do with my page file for best performance???
Thanks!!!
June 9, 2007 6:49:20 AM

For the best performance, disable the page file since you have 2 gb which should be enough for everything. If you feel you don't have enough ram, use a partition editor such as norton partition magic to create another partition (size depending on the page file size)on raptor 74gb disk. If you can setup RAID 1+0 on the 2 drives ( some chipset can have 2 RAID partition on 2 drives ) and put the page file on the raid 0 partition, you should get faster read and write speed than raptor 74gb alone.
June 9, 2007 9:25:14 AM

If I turn it OFF,would I see some changes in games ..... ????
Related resources
June 9, 2007 11:26:05 AM

Thanks
Do you know how big should it be and where?
I have 2 gigs RAM and I set it 4096Mb - on a second particion of raptor where games are. I thought I should windows leave alone!?
What do you think?
June 9, 2007 12:31:44 PM

Firstly www.nliteos.com

Secondly NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER partition a drive. It is a dumb ass idea, if you have more than 1 hdd there is no need EVER. unless you have software that you absolutely CANNOT lose you will NEVER need a partition. And I am willing to bet that you only have about 1 gig of critical data.

Thirdly you can set your page file to auto. it will be fine. Make it as big as you want to but beyond 2 gig is a bit wasteful for now, Auto is best.
June 9, 2007 12:40:27 PM

Well, with 2GB of ram, your unlikely to need anywhere near 4GB for the pagefile. I also have 2GB of ram installed, and have my pagefile set to 1536MB (1.5GB), although I have never used anywhere near that (most I've seen is around 350MB). There's a nice utility called Cacheman that you can use to both tweak and monitor pagefile usage.

My personal preference is to leave the pagefile on the c:\ drive (although my hdd setup is a bit different). I have it set to a fixed size to prevent migration and fragmentation. If you set it immediately after a WinXP install, it should be positioned on the outer edge of the disk (fastest part). Saying that, it's unllikely to be accessed much with 2GB ram installed - most frequently-accessed info will be stored in memory :) 
June 9, 2007 1:08:55 PM

As long as your running XP, then you could set your pagefile to somethign as low as 512MB. I have 2GB and I normally leave it in the 512-1GB range.

I do have a RAID 0 setup, which is where I keep my pagefile, which is ideal performance

The one thing you have to keep in mind,is the pagefile is there to act as Vitual ram. So if you run out of the real stuff, you can use the fake stuff. Some applications like a CAD or Photo editing software will need large amounts of ram, and if oyu don't have it, will want a large pagefile.

In strictly the sense of gaming, you never want to use your pagefile, has it's many times slower than actual ram. So to have a 4GB pagefile, would make for a horrible gaming experience if you were actually using that much of the pagefile.

My simple rule, is if I need a pagefile, then it's time to buy more ram. I disgaree with AOE, in that I for the longest time ran with no pagefile at all. In the strict sense of gaming, I challenge anyone to try running with no pagefile and see what really happens. If you're hitting the pagefile that much, then it's time to get more ram. I can play FEAR, Stalker BF2, BF2142 all day long with the pagefile set to 0.

Withthat said, there are other applications and uses that might require a pagefile, soin thatsense, it doesn't hurt to have a pagefile around 1GB. Again, if you're using 1Gb of pagefile, then you really need to look at more ram.

If you're looking at Vista, well, it changes things a bit. if you set the pagefile to 0, it will create one anyways. And I find that it uses the pagefile alot more, even with it shouldn't need it. in BF2142, if I have a pagefile less than 768MB, the game will crash after about an hour of play with an out of memory error. Funny enough, total memory usage is onyl around 1.5GB, so teh system still has 500MB of phsyical memory left
June 9, 2007 2:18:00 PM

Quote:
Firstly www.nliteos.com

Secondly NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER partition a drive.
.
.
.WHY?
Everybody does it,to keep separate WINdows from GAMES.
Do you think I should let my raptor in ONE peace???
June 9, 2007 3:24:03 PM

For best performance, page file should be on a drive, not a partition, other than where your system and program files are. Define your page file size, it should be maximum twice your memory. This way helps keep it from fragmenting as much. You should also set Windoze to clear the page file on shut down.
Regardless of the amount of memory you have, disabling the page file can and will lead to problems. Regardless of your settings, Windoze will create a "page file", even if it is turned off in your settings. Any benefits from not having a page file are minimal at best and mostly based upon "perceived" increases, "it just runs faster".....
As to never creating partitions on the same drive, wrong. Beneficial if you have additional drives and do not have to, but it does not create any problems if you do. Can also avoid problems, as certain programs can be using common named files. Is particularly needed if you are installing another operating system.
June 9, 2007 4:02:41 PM

I Agree with mobo57 but be aware that if you do set windows to clear pagefile at shutdown, this will increase shutdown time. Not really a big issue but just so you don't wonder why it takes so long for it to turn of.
June 9, 2007 6:29:51 PM

I turned off my page file even though i only have 1GB of ram. I ram usage never exceed 50%. So, why do you even need page file if your ram is more than enough?
June 9, 2007 6:51:45 PM

Quote:
I turned off my page file even though i only have 1GB of ram. I ram usage never exceed 50%. So, why do you even need page file if your ram is more than enough?

Here's a quote from this article:
Quote:
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.�

Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it — if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.

Worst scenario, you run the risk of running out of memory. Alternatively, you may find that some memory-resident data may need to be dropped if additional memory is needed and not available (if no pagefile exists). If this data is needed, it will need to be reread from the hdd.

Personally, I prefer to have the pagefile even if it isn't used just to avoid this risk. At the end of the day, there should be no noticeable drop in performance as, in general, the memory will be used where possible.
June 9, 2007 7:00:45 PM

I usually only do file server, word processing and internet surfing on this machine with 1gb of ram. When i need to do photoshop image editing, i would just switch a computer. But after reading your quote, i guess i'll enable 512mb of page file just in case on my Dynamic raid 0. But since it's dynamic drive, i can't set up page file.


http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php says:
Quote:
In relocating the page file, it must be on a ‘basic’ drive. Windows XP appears not to be willing to accept page files on ‘dynamic’ drives.


now that would be a problem
June 9, 2007 7:13:58 PM

Quote:
Secondly NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER partition a drive.
.
.
.

WHY?
Everybody does it,to keep separate WINdows from GAMES.
Do you think I should let my raptor in ONE peace???
Rabidpeanut has a good point. There are very few justifications for partitioning drives. I would never say 'never partion a drive' (sounds like a James Bond movie title), but there are some myths doing the rounds regarding partitioning.

I should firstly admit that there was a time when I used to have 2 partitions on every drive :oops: 

Taking your case, you have a very nice raptor for the c:\ drive. It's partitioned so you have your OS (and program files I assume) on the outer edge of the disk. This is where you get the fastest read times. On the 2nd partition, (closer to the centre of the disk) you have your game installations.

Now, if in the future you need to reinstall your OS, you will also have to reinstall all your games, as virtually all games will right data to your c:\ drive (specifically the registry, and maybe other system files also). So, the data stored on this partition is not worth saving if a reinstall is required.

Secondly, when loading games, data will need to be read from both the 2nd partition (game files) and the 1st partition (system files). This means that the read heads of the hdd will need to keep jumping around between partitions to retrieve all the necessary data.

Essentially, you're more likely to notice a drop in performance compared to not having the drive partitioned.

If you had a 2nd raptor for the game files, then you would almost definitely notice an improvement in load times for games (2 separate drives reading system and game files simultaneously). If you were to use a standard SATA drive for the game files, then you may notice an improvement, but this would depend on the amount of game data needed to be retrieved (raptors being faster - with large amounts of game data, it may be faster to retrieve all the data from the raptor).

The only situation I can imagine needing to partition a drive would be if I had a relatively large drive for my OS and a shortage of storage space (and a shortage of cash to buy another drive). In this case, I would consider partitioning the OS drive to store data that I wanted to keep after a reinstall of the OS.
June 9, 2007 7:20:55 PM

Quote:
I usually only do file server, word processing and internet surfing on this machine with 1gb of ram. When i need to do photoshop image editing, i would just switch a computer. But after reading your quote, i guess i'll enable 512mb of page file just in case on my Dynamic raid 0. But since it's dynamic drive, i can't set up page file.


http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php says:
In relocating the page file, it must be on a �basic� drive. Windows XP appears not to be willing to accept page files on �dynamic� drives.


now that would be a problem
If you're not running any memory-intensive applications and have been running the pc for a while without problem, then I would not worry too much. At the end of the day, the risk is there, but with the amounts of memory available in todays PCs, that risk is becoming less and less.
June 9, 2007 7:43:27 PM

Quote:
f you're not running any memory-intensive applications and have been running the pc for a while without problem


I've used this computer for more than 3 years without using page files and i've never had any problems even when i do photo editing with photoshop.
June 9, 2007 8:40:46 PM

I need to correct my post, I should have stated the page file should be twice the physical memory, not a maximum of twice. This is a general rule and not hard and fast. For instance, I normally use 4 gigs of ram and run 3ds Max, Maya, and Adobe Production Studio, usually After Effects. Have 1 RAID 0 of 3x300 gig Maxtor's as my main/programs drive with 2 equal partitions, one for XP and one for XP 64. I have a second RAID 0 with 2x500 Seagate's as my data drive. Just updated my "scratch" drive to a Seagate 300, it is also the drive my page file is on.
When I am running XP 32, I have my page file set to a min of 2046 and max of 6138 megs. When I have to do some really extensive stuff, I pop in my 4x2 gig modules and boot XP 64. In 64 I allow Windoze to control the size of the page file. I have had a few projects that ate up all of the 8 gigs of physical memory and anywhere from 3 to 4 gig paged.
As to not having a page file, like I said above, Windoze does create a temporary one, regardless of what settings you have. Use winderstat, you will see it in the graphics.
June 9, 2007 8:46:51 PM

Quote:
I have had a few projects that ate up all of the 8 gigs of physical memory and anywhere from 3 to 4 gig paged.


wow... I have never used more than 0.7gig of ram + page file added together at once.
June 9, 2007 9:37:02 PM

Oh... forgot to mention, a page file works just fine on a dynamic disk, all of my disks are dynamic.
June 9, 2007 11:39:49 PM

Quote:
f you're not running any memory-intensive applications and have been running the pc for a while without problem


I've used this computer for more than 3 years without using page files and i've never had any problems even when i do photo editing with photoshop.

Photoshop uses its own memory management "Scratch Disk", rather than the OS Pagefile
June 10, 2007 1:50:24 AM

Quote:
Firstly www.nliteos.com

Secondly NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER partition a drive. It is a dumb ass idea, if you have more than 1 hdd there is no need EVER. unless you have software that you absolutely CANNOT lose you will NEVER need a partition. And I am willing to bet that you only have about 1 gig of critical data.

Thirdly you can set your page file to auto. it will be fine. Make it as big as you want to but beyond 2 gig is a bit wasteful for now, Auto is best.


No offense to you personally, but this post is filled with bizarrely incorrect and just bad advice.

In response to your partitioning rant: you insist that one should never partition a Hard Drive but then fail to give a single reason why. You certainly don't have to partition a drive if you don't need to, but a hard drive is no more or no less reliable if it is partitioned or not. Virtually every server in the world has at least one partitioned Hard Drive and they are running 24/7. This would not be the case if partitioning were a such a bad idea.

In response to your pagefile comment, you should never set your page file to auto unless you have a small amount of free space left on your Hard Drive(s). It should always be set to the same min and max (static); that value is up to you but it should always be at least 1.5 times the amount of physical RAM you have in the machine.

One reason that setting the pagefile to 'auto' is problematic is because it can cause Windows to change the pagefile size on the fly. If this happens and you don't regularly defrag your HD, you can pick up one or more fragments in your pagefile every time it changes. Example- I have a client with ten workstations that have been in use for about three years. Nine were set to a static pagefile size and one was set to auto. The nine set to static have one fragment in their pagefiles. The one set to auto had 460 something fragments (!) until I realized that it was on auto and changed it back to static. To fix this, I had to run defrag on it several times and then run a defrag program that specifically defrags the pagefile before Windows starts. If you run the standard defrag in Windows, it does not defrag the pagefile. End of post; too much use of the words defrag and pagefile!

-G
June 10, 2007 2:13:04 PM

yeah, pagefile on a separate partition idea is an old one, it works good on win98 as I remember. it used to work to have the windows system and pagefile on a smallish partition so it couldn't roam to far, like a separate drive, but now it's not really a problem for me, I just use perfectdisk to defrag the pagefile every now and then etc.

but as these others are saying it almost never really gets used on your system. it's like Firefox's cache, it doesn't take any longer as far as I can tell after I clear it out, well not really as enough's going on on the net to mask the changes.

for me translation is, old drives were slow, small and affected much more by the distance each piece of information was away on the disc, and every little tweak helped, parallel data had to be sent back and forth, reliant on bandwidth all the time, new comps with 2 gig or DDR2 in them (!!!) will show almost no difference I'm sure, if you want you could do both setups and see what difference a benchmark shows.

I can't perceive the difference between data located at the end of my WD500 enterprize drive and that at the start, and it doesn't really speed up when I defrag it after a month or 2.

E6600@2.4
MSI P965 Exp. Platinum
2x1gig PNY 5-6-6-15 DDR2
XFX8800GTS 320mb
Sony DVR-212
WD500gig Enterprize Ed.
Antec P150 Case and Powersupply
Onboard everything else....
June 10, 2007 2:47:22 PM

Thanx
June 11, 2007 10:04:02 AM

Pleasure :) 

Remember partitions are the devil, with aids.
June 12, 2007 4:08:48 AM

Quote:


Remember partitions are the devil, with aids.


You are boldly throwing your ignorance out to all who have internet access, champ.

I'm most interested to hear what you have to back this up. Don't keep us in suspense!
June 12, 2007 7:30:22 AM

Quote:


Worst scenario, you run the risk of running out of memory. Alternatively, you may find that some memory-resident data may need to be dropped if additional memory is needed and not available (if no pagefile exists). If this data is needed, it will need to be reread from the hdd.


Errrrrrrrmmm.... The pagefile IS in the HDD. If I use it to store data as if it were ram... Doesn't it get reread from the hdd too when needed? :roll:

IMHO, a pagefile for normal people with normal computers is something recommendable. It is better to leave it on, just in case.

Me, I'll never use a pagefile on my computer. I don't want the HDD to do extra work, it is already the slowest component in a computer nowadays. If I need a pagefile, I need ram instead. The pagefile is just a cheap ram replacement. And it is NOT necessary for windows to run properly.
June 12, 2007 11:55:23 AM

Any body know in what direction a drive is formated, i.e. outside of the disk towards in inside or is it from the inside out (like a CD).
Why if you can create a smallish partition on the outside of the disk and put the swap file there transfer speed will be faster.
This is an old Server trick used to eek out at much performance as possible.
June 12, 2007 12:21:54 PM

This will always be a debated topic. If you feel compelled to separate your pagefile from windows them definitely place it on the non OS drive. 1 gig will be more than sufficient for the average user. If you are a heavy multi tasker then increase it to 2 gig.
June 12, 2007 12:59:22 PM

Try something other than ICO files in Photoshop then....................

Photoshop can easily eat more than 4gb of memory when working with high res images. Especially working with many of them.

So, I perhaps we are to presume you are running WinXP-64 and 8gb of RAM?
June 12, 2007 1:13:04 PM

On the non-OS disk in the first partition devoted only to swap files.
June 13, 2007 11:25:51 PM

Quote:


Worst scenario, you run the risk of running out of memory. Alternatively, you may find that some memory-resident data may need to be dropped if additional memory is needed and not available (if no pagefile exists). If this data is needed, it will need to be reread from the hdd.


Errrrrrrrmmm.... The pagefile IS in the HDD. If I use it to store data as if it were ram... Doesn't it get reread from the hdd too when needed? :roll:

IMHO, a pagefile for normal people with normal computers is something recommendable. It is better to leave it on, just in case.

Me, I'll never use a pagefile on my computer. I don't want the HDD to do extra work, it is already the slowest component in a computer nowadays. If I need a pagefile, I need ram instead. The pagefile is just a cheap ram replacement. And it is NOT necessary for windows to run properly.

Read the article mentioned earlier if you want to know more about it, but without a pagefile you will waste a LOT of ram (might be up to 30% or so depending on what software you use), which can be better used for other things such as filesystem caching.
June 14, 2007 12:23:07 AM

Quote:


Worst scenario, you run the risk of running out of memory. Alternatively, you may find that some memory-resident data may need to be dropped if additional memory is needed and not available (if no pagefile exists). If this data is needed, it will need to be reread from the hdd.


Errrrrrrrmmm.... The pagefile IS in the HDD. If I use it to store data as if it were ram... Doesn't it get reread from the hdd too when needed? :roll:

IMHO, a pagefile for normal people with normal computers is something recommendable. It is better to leave it on, just in case.

Me, I'll never use a pagefile on my computer. I don't want the HDD to do extra work, it is already the slowest component in a computer nowadays. If I need a pagefile, I need ram instead. The pagefile is just a cheap ram replacement. And it is NOT necessary for windows to run properly.

Read the article mentioned earlier if you want to know more about it, but without a pagefile you will waste a LOT of ram (might be up to 30% or so depending on what software you use), which can be better used for other things such as filesystem caching.

No its worse than that. The pagefile is used as the backing store for inter-process shared memory. Since shared memory is managed as a memory mapped file by the kernal it MUST be mapped onto a disk file (not that any real disk IO is nesessarily generated). If you turn off the page file it can really mess some programs up. In any case if you turn off the pagefile windows will just create a tempory one anyway (since it always has some shared memory sections) if this fails it will probably just BSOD or programs will behave erratically. Since the tempory file must be created and resized during boot and run time respectively this is SLOWER than having a pagefile. Don't mess with it just leave the pagefile alone, its fine as it is.
In any case the kernal tracks memory pages to see if they are modified since last read (from pagefile or exe/data file) and will only page out if it needs the ram and it's contents are changed from last read (after all if its un-modified then you can just re-read it if its needed again). In short both XP and Vista treat memory as a write back cache for the page file, exe files, dlls, and the file cache, so why turn the pagefile off? It will still page in and the pagefile will only ever help not hinder. The only time it will ever page when it doesn't need to is if BOTH the disk and CPU are idle so that it can pre-write back modified data to disk so that it doesn't have to bother pageing out when it's really is busy and short of ram. But since its idle anyway why do you care? Over time any unused tasks and initialization data will be paged out in the background and then can be simply overwritten if the ram is needed later on. In the same way any free pages are filled with zeros in the background so they can be given to programs requesting new memory allocations without being zeroed (for security) at run time.

BTW, Vista and XP treat memory EXACTLY the same way i.e. only try to keep 4MB free (unused/zeroed whatever you want to call it). Code and data is paged in and cached there even when its not currently mapped to any applications or the file cache. The only difference is Microsoft have rejigged the counters in task manger to be more descriptive and added a pre-prefetch (a.k.a. superfetch) to pre-cache potentially useful code and data before its even requested.
June 14, 2007 12:40:26 AM

You're probably right about inter-process shared memory - bottom line is, pagefile should be on and there isn't a practical reason to change the default settings (of course if you're an enthusiast you can play with them just for the fun of it :D ).
June 14, 2007 1:53:21 AM

Regardless of how much RAM you have the page file still need to be on. On a nowadays 32bit system every process will get a 4GB virtual memory space, and having more than 4GB RAM on a 32bit system (you can use more than 4GB with PAE info here and of course vista also supports it, the doc is a little old) is less likely so in the end the memory remaining you have will always be smaller than 4GB. Memory is used to do the actual works and keep just used code and data (in case of vista there're also data likely to be used next) and the page file is used to stored all the data of running kernel and user data. This is just a simpler way of saying what TrinityTP said. Also there're maybe differences between Vista and XP in handling memory: Vista will always keep all the code of loaded dynamic link libraries of running processes in memory and XP will always try to freed unused one out as fast as possible. This is why if you have a minimized program and doing defrag or some memory intensive program when going to lunch or a break for example the minimized program will be much more responsive when you come back with vista (not some magics by superfetch that MS brag). This is from looking at how memory works with Process Explorer not so sure but when I have the time will dig deeper.

In case of one HD system you just keep the default settings that's the best if you know how to handle your C: drive (should have more than 4G free space). If you can't do that as someone's already mentioned create a partion from 2G to 4G in size at the start of the dics and keep the swap file there with system managed setting. If you need to use kernel memory dump then leaving 200MB for XP on the system drive, it's not enough for vista as I have tried it and failed, don't know the sweet spot for vista yet. For entire memory dump you need an equal amount of your RAM for swap file on your system drive.

With multiple HDs system. You can put it in the first partition of the fastest HD either it's your system drive or not. With the same rules from above for swap file size and kernel/memory dump.
June 14, 2007 2:40:30 AM

Quote:
Firstly www.nliteos.com

Secondly NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER partition a drive. It is a dumb ass idea, if you have more than 1 hdd there is no need EVER. unless you have software that you absolutely CANNOT lose you will NEVER need a partition. And I am willing to bet that you only have about 1 gig of critical data.


Pretty strong statement there. No reasons given to back it up either. I've kept my drive partioned on every computer I've owned for the last 15 years and never suffered anything by doing it. I have saved a lot of work though, when the OS has to be reinstalled from time to time. Oh yes, you would loose the bet on how much data I have. Last I looked, it was over 150 gb worth on one computer and about 250 gb on another. Then again, I use my computers for more than just gaming. I currently have three computers and will be adding a fourth in a few months and they have a lot of business and research programs and data on them.

Oh well, to each his or her own and this is just my opinion
June 14, 2007 2:43:33 AM

Quote:
E6600
2 gigs
7900GTX
1.raptor 74g (2 particions first for windows,second for games)

2.hard 80g (2 particions only storage)

What do I have to do with my page file for best performance???
Thanks!!!


If you don't use a lot of memory intensive apps like Photoshop, simply make a 4gb partition as the first partition on the second HD and specify in Windows that is where you want the pagefile.

Why?
Because Windows always uses a pagefile. I have more than enough RAM for my PC, yet when XP starts and loads the basic processes and the firewall, I'm sitting at 200mb of pagefile usage.

Why the first partition of the second disk?
Because the first partition you make in Windows will be located at the outside edge of the second hard disk. And the outside edge of the disk has faster read and writes times than the smaller diameter inside of the disk.
June 14, 2007 8:21:54 AM

Quote:
Also there're maybe differences between Vista and XP in handling memory: Vista will always keep all the code of loaded dynamic link libraries of running processes in memory and XP will always try to freed unused one out as fast as possible. This is why if you have a minimized program and doing defrag or some memory intensive program when going to lunch or a break for example the minimized program will be much more responsive when you come back with vista (not some magics by superfetch that MS brag). This is from looking at how memory works with Process Explorer not so sure but when I have the time will dig deeper.

This is not true. XP also will NOT remove a dll, process, or file mapping from memory either (unless it runs out of ram). The only difference is its balance set manager is more aggressive in trimming inactive processes' working sets (after all when XP was designed memory sizes were considerably smaller than today). However, the process memory will be moved to the standby list in ram and can be soft-faulted back to the process with no disk IO. Process explorer is simply showing you its current working set which is in no way indicative of the total amount of code or data a process has in memory, and is simply as measure of how much of this is mapped and immediately available without generating a soft-fault (CPU only).

The cache operates the same way in that its WS = the amount of file data mapped at this point in time for program file IO routines. As and when this gets too big the mappings are freed to the standby list by the balance set manager but they can simply be mapped again (at some small CPU cost) when needed.

Under Task manager in XP:
System cache = The cache manager's WS.
Available = Free Memory + Standby List (as it can be overwritten quickly)

Under Task manager in Vista:
System cache = The cache manager's WS + Standby List
Available = Free Memory

Microsoft changed the display to avoid the confusion everyone obviously has about this. Unfortunately (or fortunately from the point of view of their marketing dept.), now everyone thinks this is a somehow different way to manage the memory.
!