Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

interesting, no page file,system runs really good

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 2, 2003 5:37:46 PM

i disabled the virtually memory and my system just flies now. Here is a perfect example.

I have an external hard drive connected using firewire. WITH virtual memory enabled i made an ISO file on the external drive, the fastest it got was about 10MB/s and it was variable from 2 to 5 1 .. etc ... then i disabled virtual memory because i wanted to defrag the drive fresh and then reinstate the virtual memory. But i thought, lets try it with out virtual memory.

I made an ISO file for Maya to the external drive and it was going at 20MB/s constant speed. I thought wow this is pretty damn fast. I kept it off and it just runs just as good without virtual memory and better.

of course i have 512MB of ram. I wouldn't recommend that for anyone with less ram then that. I can only imagine down the road if i have too many things open i'll hit the "out of memory" error.

i just thought it was interesting and i wanted to share it.

i'll try and get benchmarks if you care? ... and to make it cpu related, i didn't know what it was but now i just realized this could go under hard drives, but i'm too lazy to to redo all this again.

umm, my pentium 4 2ghz rocks and amd is evil and bad boooo bad ... j/k - mocking the fanboys.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
February 3, 2003 3:04:23 PM

I have to say that I always asked myself why Windows was using virtual memory if I still have plenty of RAM unused (I also have 512Mb). But when I tried to disable virtual memory Windows said it can be dangerous ...

I though that maybe some unstable issues can occur, but maybe it's worth to try, at least doing some testing with something risk free, so no information is lost. Probably Windows was trying to scare me about something not so "crucial".


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
February 3, 2003 3:29:00 PM

I have 1gb of RAM but my pagefile is nevertheless set to a fixed size of 768mb because Windows needs to reserve virtual memory for every program which is running.

BTW, Windows 2000 and XP don't use virtual memory for paging unless it's really required because physical memory is running out. Don't mix up "reserving virtual memory" and "using virtual memory", that are two different things with the former not writing anything (or almost nothing) to the pagefile nor taking any performance away...
Related resources
February 3, 2003 4:12:27 PM

I have to disagree Vacs, I have win XP Pro, with 3 X 128 sticks = 384 megs, and my ram usage is typically only between 160 to 200 megs used, and windows is insistent that it needs to use my virtual memory. I have way more actual memory then it ever uses.. and it goes to the page file all the time.. is their anyway to stop windows form doing this and make it use all my actual memory?

Rob

<b><font color=red>Nothin like a Pentium II furiously churning out a blistering 0.8 FPS on 3D Mark 2001!!!</font color=red></b>
February 3, 2003 4:35:50 PM

I just said that there is a "performance" difference between "reserving" and "using" virtual memory. The thing most people notice is "reserving" vm which is indicated in the task manager as "used virtual memory" but doesn't take any performance away. Windows NT (2000 and XP) does not use virtual memory (pagefile swapping) unless it really needs to!
February 3, 2003 4:39:32 PM

Post deleted by vacs
February 3, 2003 4:57:50 PM

So then here is the scoop... I am building a new system. it has an Asus A7N8X with two 512 meg modules of pc 3200. I want win xp to use all the real ram i have instead of look to the virtual memory, considering i paid for so much of it... I want it to be used!!! is there any way i can get it to use strictly all my real ram?? What would happen if i eliminated the virtual memory... it would have no choice to use just my real ram... Hahahhahhahahahha (evil laugh) :) 

<b><font color=red>Nothin like a Pentium II furiously churning out a blistering 0.8 FPS on 3D Mark 2001!!!</font color=red></b>
February 3, 2003 4:57:50 PM

So then here is the scoop... I am building a new system. it has an Asus A7N8X with two 512 meg modules of pc 3200. I want win xp to use all the real ram i have instead of look to the virtual memory, considering i paid for so much of it... I want it to be used!!! is there any way i can get it to use strictly all my real ram?? What would happen if i eliminated the virtual memory... it would have no choice to use just my real ram... Hahahhahhahahahha (evil laugh) :) 

<b><font color=red>Nothin like a Pentium II furiously churning out a blistering 0.8 FPS on 3D Mark 2001!!!</font color=red></b>
February 3, 2003 8:36:17 PM

"The thing most people notice is "reserving" vm which is indicated in the task manager as "used virtual memory" but doesn't take any performance away."

Well not to nit pick but under the performance bar (WinXP Task Manager ) it says "PF Usage" and "Page File Usage History" it dosen't say "used virtual memory" Windows report a page file usage even when you have disabled the PF why? unless ofcourse its showing reserved PF space....but that dosen't make any sence either....why would XP reserve PF space if it's not going to be able to use it anyway????
February 3, 2003 9:17:06 PM

very simple, because the Windows memory manager has been designed to reserve virtual memory for each and every program/game which is running, even if it does not need to page itself out. Don't ask why, only Bill knows why this is this way...

If you now disable the pagefile, Windows nevertheless needs to reserve memory for the programs running because it has been designed this way. Of course without any pagefile, it will reserve the memory in your physical memory which will shortly run out of space... That's the reason why you can get an "low on memory" warning with even 1gb of RAM by only starting notepad, when you have virtual memory completed disabled.

One can say it a hundred times, some will never listen: NEVER disable virtual memory in any Windows version! With Linux however, this is a completely different thing
February 4, 2003 6:38:47 AM

Sorry vacs, but it seems you are quite knowledge in this area. As others has said, I would like to force my system to use as much real memory as posible before it uses virtual memory.

If I have understood well, disable virtual memory is not a good idea (always scare me a little, don't want to loose info). So, it could be a good idea to fix the virtual memory very low (maybe 1Mb or 10Mb or whatever) so Windows will be happy because it have some VM but mainly real memory will be used?

And don't know if I make my point enough clear, but to sum up what is the best way to optimise memory allocation?

Note: I am assuming that real memory is far better than VM, isn't it?


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
February 4, 2003 10:35:28 AM

"Of course without any pagefile, it will reserve the memory in your physical memory which will shortly run out of space... That's the reason why you can get an "low on memory" warning with even 1gb of RAM by only starting notepad, when you have virtual memory completed disabled."

with the PF disabled I have never recieved a low on mem error (1gig ram in XP). with 512 Yes but not with 1gig. The PF usage in task manager is perhaps not correct? With 512 there is PF usage 150 mb(fluctuates)but you do get out of mem errors. IMO this is a indication that it is not using any PF after all...why would there be an mem error otherwise if its using a PF anyway?? Do you see my point?
February 4, 2003 10:57:41 AM

"If I have understood well, disable virtual memory is not a good idea (always scare me a little, don't want to loose info). So, it could be a good idea to fix the virtual memory very low (maybe 1Mb or 10Mb or whatever) so Windows will be happy because it have some VM but mainly real memory will be used?"

I did test run my rig with the PF disabled: Here is my conclusion:

with 512mb ram
1. Task manager shows a page file usage and history 150-300mb
2. During heavy load test I did recive out of mem error, enable PF message from XP.

3. When you disable PF Photoshop sense it and asks you to enable it's a obligatory message regardless of RAM amount(I choose No and continued). With 512 I did recive mem error when i openend a huge file for fileter rendering.
-------
with 1gig ram:
1. Task manager shows a page file usage and history 150-300mb
2. During heavy load test i never recived any PF error or out of mem error from XP.
3. When you diable PF photoshop sense it and asks you to enable it's a obligatory message regardless of RAM amount(I choose No and continued). With I gig ram I did NOT recive any mem error when i openend a huge file(s) for filter rendering.

My conclusion with PF disabled, 1gig is ideal for Windows XP (dunno if my test would work same with other Windows systems?)
February 4, 2003 12:36:59 PM

Well Bob, then I suspect that I can run without PF (disabled), because I'm running W98SE. I mean, Windows XP is more demanding (as I heard in these forums), but even the OS I'm using has problems when more than 512Mb are installed!

Anyway, I will do some testing with some applications/files and see what happens. Thanks for explain your experience, very informative.


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
February 4, 2003 5:18:42 PM

baldurga,

I actually ran my PC for a few months with no swap. Honestly, there might have been a slight increase in speed but without benchmarks I coulda been victim of the placebo affect. I was using 512 megs of Samsung PC2700, and would occasionally get a RAM error when using memory intensive applications (a RAM BSOD, so to speak). All in all, I decided it was just easier to keep a reduced swap file on hand.

Just for your reference, I was always able to simply reboot so I never worried about not using the swap. Give it a try.

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>
February 4, 2003 5:25:32 PM

So with my gig of corsair pc 3200 on my A7N8X and win XP Pro, do u you think i would be better off with a page file or without? I would really like to use my actual ram before i use the pagefile....

Rob

<b><font color=red>Nothin like a Pentium II furiously churning out a blistering 0.8 FPS on 3D Mark 2001!!!</font color=red></b>
February 5, 2003 8:54:12 PM

I think it's fun to experiment, so I would say do it. However, to some people the risks (worst case, reinstall!) are greater than the minimal gains. The way I see it, this really isn't a big risk at all, and you have superior hardware. You know you wanna try it...Go for it!

<font color=purple><i>Smokey McPot - Your Baby's Daddy</i></font color=purple>
!