How can I tell if I need more memory?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
things up?

--
####################
## PH, London
####################
14 answers Last reply
More about memory
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Hi Philip,

    If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    will benefit from more RAM.
    Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

    --
    Regards,
    Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    http://dts-l.org/

    Philip Herlihy wrote:
    > I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    > (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    > around with the various performance counters, especially
    > the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    > results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    > memory would speed things up?
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    news:OaBq8GIhFHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
    >thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
    >counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
    >things up?
    >
    > --
    > ####################
    > ## PH, London
    > ####################
    >

    It is best judged when using the computer normally. Run your program, do
    what you normally do. Does it seem slow? Playing with performance counters
    won't make the computer faster.
    If you have a specific program or use that you have a problem with then ask.
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb" but
    I'm looking for some real evidence!

    --
    ####################
    ## PH, London
    ####################
    "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > Hi Philip,
    >
    > If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the following
    > article you will find a formula for detecting if your system will benefit
    > from more RAM.
    > Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    > http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    > http://dts-l.org/
    >
    > Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >> memory would speed things up?
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
    1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly). The
    control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.

    With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine to
    fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use it for
    web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in the
    background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay corresponding
    to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after which it would "fly"
    again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for most operations I do get
    occasional slowdowns, with either the processor or the disk light maxed out.
    I'd like to use the performance monitor to understand it better, but I'm
    having trouble interpreting the results.

    --
    ####################
    ## PH, London
    ####################
    "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
    > but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >
    > --
    > ####################
    > ## PH, London
    > ####################
    > "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> Hi Philip,
    >>
    >> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    >> will benefit from more RAM.
    >> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >> http://dts-l.org/
    >>
    >> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>> memory would speed things up?
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    >>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>> memory would speed things up?


    >> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> Hi Philip,
    >>>
    >>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    >>> will benefit from more RAM.
    >>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Regards,
    >>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>> http://dts-l.org/


    > "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    > news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
    >> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>
    >> --
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >> ####################


    "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
    > 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
    > The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
    >
    > With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine to
    > fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use it
    > for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in the
    > background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay corresponding
    > to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after which it would
    > "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for most operations
    > I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor or the disk light
    > maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to understand it
    > better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
    > --
    > ####################
    > ## PH, London


    Philip:
    On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM should
    be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand since
    you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive applications, an
    extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so might possibly make
    things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to impossible to tell
    until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs. value point of view,
    there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which *really* work to tell
    you with any degree of precision just how much memory one needs. As a
    practical matter all one can do in most cases is install additional RAM to
    determine if there is any substantive improvement in the computer's
    performance as a result of the increased memory.

    You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you should
    be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine with 768 MB
    of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending upon what you
    mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is rather modest and
    since you're working with some high-intensity applications "with loads of
    things going on in the background", it could very well be it's your
    processing power that needs the upgrading. But of course, when you're
    dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the processor alone is not
    normally a practical option, sad to say.
    Anna
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
    identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
    use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
    results.

    --
    ####################
    ## PH, London
    ####################
    "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    news:ugGG9fKhFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>>> memory would speed things up?
    >
    >
    >>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >>> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Hi Philip,
    >>>>
    >>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    >>>> will benefit from more RAM.
    >>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Regards,
    >>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>>> http://dts-l.org/
    >
    >
    >> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
    >>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> ####################
    >>> ## PH, London
    >>> ####################
    >
    >
    > "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    > news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
    >> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
    >> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
    >>
    >> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
    >> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
    >> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
    >> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
    >> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
    >> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
    >> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
    >> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
    >> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
    >> --
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >
    >
    > Philip:
    > On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM should
    > be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand since
    > you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive applications, an
    > extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so might possibly make
    > things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to impossible to tell
    > until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs. value point of view,
    > there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which *really* work to tell
    > you with any degree of precision just how much memory one needs. As a
    > practical matter all one can do in most cases is install additional RAM to
    > determine if there is any substantive improvement in the computer's
    > performance as a result of the increased memory.
    >
    > You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
    > should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
    > with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
    > upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
    > rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
    > applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
    > very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
    > course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
    > processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
    > Anna
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    > ####################
    > ## PH, London
    > ####################
    > "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    > news:ugGG9fKhFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>>>> memory would speed things up?
    >>
    >>
    >>>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >>>> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Hi Philip,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    >>>>> will benefit from more RAM.
    >>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Regards,
    >>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>>>> http://dts-l.org/
    >>
    >>
    >>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
    >>>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> ####################
    >>>> ## PH, London
    >>>> ####################
    >>
    >>
    >> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
    >>> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
    >>> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
    >>>
    >>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
    >>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
    >>> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
    >>> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
    >>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
    >>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
    >>> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
    >>> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
    >>> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
    >>> --
    >>> ####################
    >>> ## PH, London
    >>
    >>
    >> Philip:
    >> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
    >> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
    >> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
    >> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
    >> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to
    >> impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs.
    >> value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which
    >> *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how much
    >> memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most cases is
    >> install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
    >> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
    >> memory.
    >>
    >> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
    >> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
    >> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
    >> upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
    >> rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
    >> applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
    >> very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
    >> course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
    >> processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
    >> Anna


    "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    news:evFZ0uKhFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
    > identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
    > use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
    > results.


    Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
    technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
    certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
    performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
    I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
    sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
    Anna
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    The amount of swapping. Not the amount of swap file used.


    An example of the second. The Add Font dialog. Noone uses it. If your computer isn't rebooted for a year it will soon end up in the swap file (though being in an dll it will be swapped to the dll it lives in - ie as dll don't change it will be discarded and read if needed - all open executable files become swap files which is why you can't delete them). Many things will end up swapped. This is not a problem. It merely getting rid of unused memory so it can give it to something that might use it.

    However data that you use frequently should stay in memory most of the time. It's frequent swapping in and out that is the problem.

    I doubt you have any memory problem. You are most likely to have too much memory which is merely a waste of your cash..


    --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
    =================================================
    "Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email> wrote in message news:daogm6$3p8$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    > "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    > news:OaBq8GIhFHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
    >>thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
    >>counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
    >>things up?
    >>
    >> --
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >> ####################
    >>
    >
    > It is best judged when using the computer normally. Run your program, do
    > what you normally do. Does it seem slow? Playing with performance counters
    > won't make the computer faster.
    > If you have a specific program or use that you have a problem with then ask.
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    news:uyrcU6LhFHA.2840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >> ####################
    >> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    >> news:ugGG9fKhFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>>>>> memory would speed things up?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Hi Philip,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your
    >>>>>> system will benefit from more RAM.
    >>>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Regards,
    >>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of
    >>>>> thumb" but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> ####################
    >>>>> ## PH, London
    >>>>> ####################
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start
    >>>> at 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not
    >>>> surprisingly). The control panel dialogue shows that as the
    >>>> "recommended" size.
    >>>>
    >>>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
    >>>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I
    >>>> use it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going
    >>>> on in the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
    >>>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
    >>>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick
    >>>> for most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the
    >>>> processor or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance
    >>>> monitor to understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting
    >>>> the results.
    >>>> --
    >>>> ####################
    >>>> ## PH, London
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Philip:
    >>> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
    >>> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
    >>> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
    >>> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
    >>> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next
    >>> to impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost
    >>> vs. value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb
    >>> which *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how
    >>> much memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most
    >>> cases is install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
    >>> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
    >>> memory.
    >>>
    >>> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
    >>> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
    >>> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly",
    >>> depending upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz
    >>> processor is rather modest and since you're working with some
    >>> high-intensity applications "with loads of things going on in the
    >>> background", it could very well be it's your processing power that needs
    >>> the upgrading. But of course, when you're dealing with a
    >>> laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the processor alone is not normally a
    >>> practical option, sad to say.
    >>> Anna
    >
    >
    > "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    > news:evFZ0uKhFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on
    >> and identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe,
    >> is to use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting
    >> the results.
    >
    >
    > Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
    > technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
    > certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
    > performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
    > I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
    > sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
    > Anna
    >

    And I said the similar too. It is real world performance in an application
    that matters not a benchmark figure. He still hasn't said what real problem
    he has, just an attempt to increase benchmark figures. Why not just try as
    many benchmarks as possible then use the one that gives the biggest number?
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    I told him how but the ignorant pig ignores me.

    --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
    =================================================
    "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message news:uyrcU6LhFHA.2840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >> ####################
    >> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    >> news:ugGG9fKhFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>>>>> memory would speed things up?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Hi Philip,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your system
    >>>>>> will benefit from more RAM.
    >>>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Regards,
    >>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of thumb"
    >>>>> but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> ####################
    >>>>> ## PH, London
    >>>>> ####################
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start at
    >>>> 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not surprisingly).
    >>>> The control panel dialogue shows that as the "recommended" size.
    >>>>
    >>>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
    >>>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I use
    >>>> it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going on in
    >>>> the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
    >>>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
    >>>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick for
    >>>> most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the processor
    >>>> or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance monitor to
    >>>> understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting the results.
    >>>> --
    >>>> ####################
    >>>> ## PH, London
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Philip:
    >>> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
    >>> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
    >>> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
    >>> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
    >>> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next to
    >>> impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost vs.
    >>> value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb which
    >>> *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how much
    >>> memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most cases is
    >>> install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
    >>> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
    >>> memory.
    >>>
    >>> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
    >>> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
    >>> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly", depending
    >>> upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz processor is
    >>> rather modest and since you're working with some high-intensity
    >>> applications "with loads of things going on in the background", it could
    >>> very well be it's your processing power that needs the upgrading. But of
    >>> course, when you're dealing with a laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the
    >>> processor alone is not normally a practical option, sad to say.
    >>> Anna
    >
    >
    > "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    > news:evFZ0uKhFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on and
    >> identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe, is to
    >> use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting the
    >> results.
    >
    >
    > Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
    > technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
    > certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
    > performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
    > I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
    > sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
    > Anna
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Given a choice between you, me, or Anna I think I'd choose Anna too.

    --
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.html
    =================================================
    "Alan Smith" <alan@hidden.email> wrote in message news:dapld7$p1r$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >
    > "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    > news:uyrcU6LhFHA.2840@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>> ####################
    >>> ## PH, London
    >>> ####################
    >>> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:ugGG9fKhFHA.3300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
    >>>>>>>> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory
    >>>>>>>> (I've always thought this was a lot!). I've played
    >>>>>>>> around with the various performance counters, especially
    >>>>>>>> the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >>>>>>>> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more
    >>>>>>>> memory would speed things up?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:ORrNChIhFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>>> Hi Philip,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If you read the "How big should the page file be" section in the
    >>>>>>> following article you will find a formula for detecting if your
    >>>>>>> system will benefit from more RAM.
    >>>>>>> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
    >>>>>>> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>> Regards,
    >>>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    >>>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:%23i9uaTJhFHA.1048@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>>>> Thanks - I'll study that carefully! There are lots of "rules of
    >>>>>> thumb" but I'm looking for some real evidence!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> ####################
    >>>>>> ## PH, London
    >>>>>> ####################
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%232kqhjJhFHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >>>>> The article certainly made me look at my pagefile - it's set to start
    >>>>> at 1.2Gb and doesn't seem to get any bigger than that (not
    >>>>> surprisingly). The control panel dialogue shows that as the
    >>>>> "recommended" size.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> With a 2GHz processor and 768Mb of memory I'd have expected the machine
    >>>>> to fly, even though I work it very hard (both apps and services). I
    >>>>> use it for web-design and graphics editing, with loads of things going
    >>>>> on in the background. If it was paging I'd expect an occasional delay
    >>>>> corresponding to a sudden burst of activity on the disk light, after
    >>>>> which it would "fly" again, but although it seems to be pretty quick
    >>>>> for most operations I do get occasional slowdowns, with either the
    >>>>> processor or the disk light maxed out. I'd like to use the performance
    >>>>> monitor to understand it better, but I'm having trouble interpreting
    >>>>> the results.
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> ####################
    >>>>> ## PH, London
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Philip:
    >>>> On the face of things it would seem that your present 768 MB of RAM
    >>>> should be more than sufficient for your purposes, but on the other hand
    >>>> since you're working with some relatively high memory-intensive
    >>>> applications, an extra 256 MB of memory to bring you up to 1 GB or so
    >>>> might possibly make things work a bit more sprightly. It's really next
    >>>> to impossible to tell until you try it. In my experience, from a cost
    >>>> vs. value point of view, there are no programs/hardware/rules-of-thumb
    >>>> which *really* work to tell you with any degree of precision just how
    >>>> much memory one needs. As a practical matter all one can do in most
    >>>> cases is install additional RAM to determine if there is any substantive
    >>>> improvement in the computer's performance as a result of the increased
    >>>> memory.
    >>>>
    >>>> You mention your laptop is equipped with a 2 GHz processor. While you
    >>>> should be getting a reasonable amount of performance from that machine
    >>>> with 768 MB of RAM, I'm not certain you can expect it to "fly",
    >>>> depending upon what you mean by that. By today's standards a 2 GHz
    >>>> processor is rather modest and since you're working with some
    >>>> high-intensity applications "with loads of things going on in the
    >>>> background", it could very well be it's your processing power that needs
    >>>> the upgrading. But of course, when you're dealing with a
    >>>> laptop/notebook, an upgrade of the processor alone is not normally a
    >>>> practical option, sad to say.
    >>>> Anna
    >>
    >>
    >> "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    >> news:evFZ0uKhFHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >>> Thanks for the comments, but it is possible to measure what's going on
    >>> and identify the bottleneck or lack of one, maybe. The key, I believe,
    >>> is to use the performance monitoring tools, but I need help interpreting
    >>> the results.
    >>
    >>
    >> Well, Phillip I certainly wish you luck finding a tool or measurement
    >> technique that will allow the user to determine with some degree of
    >> certainty whether adding this or that amount of RAM will result in some
    >> performance gain that can be specifically and accurately measured. I know
    >> I've never found such. But if & when you do, please post your findings. I
    >> sure would like to know about it and I'm sure others would as well.
    >> Anna
    >>
    >
    > And I said the similar too. It is real world performance in an application
    > that matters not a benchmark figure. He still hasn't said what real problem
    > he has, just an attempt to increase benchmark figures. Why not just try as
    > many benchmarks as possible then use the one that gives the biggest number?
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Thanks to (almost) everyone who has taken the trouble to contribute.

    Some years ago I read a dense treatise on performance, a chapter in a
    boggling book on windows internals. That discussed (in very great detail) a
    baffling array of counters and their interaction. I don't have the book to
    hand now, and recently found I couldn't interpret the results when I tried
    running the counters (Control Panel, Administrative Tools, Performance).
    So, I asked here. Bert's reply was helpful, leading me to consider (and
    exclude) page-file sizing as a contribution. I value the goodwill of those
    who shared their experience and outlook, but was looking for something
    definite, along the lines of that half-remembered chapter. I wasn't even
    sure if my expectations of performance were reasonable, of course.

    Someone in another forum (uk.comp.misc) came up with a solution which is
    simpler and more elegant than I'd expected. Task Manager, under the
    Performance tab, gives a figure for "Commit Charge", which is described as:

    "Memory allocated to programs and the operating system. Because of memory
    copied to the paging file, called virtual memory, the value listed under
    Peak may exceed the maximum physical memory"

    It appears to be enough to compare the Peak value of Commit Charge
    (currently 622,248) with Physical memory (785,648). I hadn't previously
    registered what this metric denoted. These figures shows my machine hasn't
    yet (today) had to swap out anything, so it seems likely that my machine's
    limits are within the disk, CPU or some other less easily-upgraded
    component. I might be able to save the £90 I was going to blow on another
    Gb of memory. On the other hand, I'm not running Dreamweaver or Photoshop
    (for example) yet, so I'll monitor the situation over the next few days.
    Now, with Dreamweaver, Photoshop and FrontPage loaded, and a file open in
    each, my Commit Charge is now 726,444. Looks like I have enough memory!
    Perhaps it's my expectations that need adjusting...

    --
    ####################
    ## PH, London
    ####################
    "Philip Herlihy" <foof8501@herlihy.eu.veil.com> wrote in message
    news:OaBq8GIhFHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
    >thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
    >counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
    >things up?
    >
    > --
    > ####################
    > ## PH, London
    > ####################
    >
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Performance monitoring is a very tricky task, and I love that you have
    attacked it with the perfmon tool.

    Too many people have no idea what that tool really can tell you becayse of
    the dizzying array of counters and objects.

    Lets lay some groundwork first.

    Going in assuming that one area is a potential bottleneck will skew your
    search, so go in open minded.

    I will assume you know the diffrence between objects, counters, and instances.

    There are four basic items that will effect performance:
    CPU (number and speed)
    RAM (amount and type/speed)
    Disk access speed
    Network interface

    To get any meaningful results you should monitor at least the first three.
    As an initial baseline I would monitor the

    Processor : percent of CPU usage
    Server work queues: Que Length
    Memory : available mbits
    Memory : Pages per sec
    Pagefile: % usage
    Physical disk : current Que length

    A combination of high CPU activity, low pages per second on Memory, Low
    available Mbits, and high % usage on page file indicate a bottleneck in the
    RAM.

    The ques let you know if there are any other bottlenecks. A server work que
    length over 5 for any amount of time is indicitive of a proc bottleneck.

    High disk ques show a slow disk subsystem. Combine that with high page usage
    and you will see a massiv eperformance drop when excessive paging occurs.

    I don't have the link, but there used to be excel macro that you could dump
    raw perfmon data into (csv file) and would pinpoint bottlenecks.


    "Philip Herlihy" wrote:

    > I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
    > thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various performance
    > counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    > results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
    > things up?
    >
    > --
    > ####################
    > ## PH, London
    > ####################
    >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

    Thanks, Manny - I've already tried these counters and come to some pretty
    clear conclusions. My machine is disk-bound if anything.

    Thanks!

    --
    ####################
    ## PH, London
    ####################
    "Manny Borges" <MannyBorges@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:ABDDADBE-8DF6-412A-9624-FAA08B381F5E@microsoft.com...
    > Performance monitoring is a very tricky task, and I love that you have
    > attacked it with the perfmon tool.
    >
    > Too many people have no idea what that tool really can tell you becayse of
    > the dizzying array of counters and objects.
    >
    > Lets lay some groundwork first.
    >
    > Going in assuming that one area is a potential bottleneck will skew your
    > search, so go in open minded.
    >
    > I will assume you know the diffrence between objects, counters, and
    > instances.
    >
    > There are four basic items that will effect performance:
    > CPU (number and speed)
    > RAM (amount and type/speed)
    > Disk access speed
    > Network interface
    >
    > To get any meaningful results you should monitor at least the first three.
    > As an initial baseline I would monitor the
    >
    > Processor : percent of CPU usage
    > Server work queues: Que Length
    > Memory : available mbits
    > Memory : Pages per sec
    > Pagefile: % usage
    > Physical disk : current Que length
    >
    > A combination of high CPU activity, low pages per second on Memory, Low
    > available Mbits, and high % usage on page file indicate a bottleneck in
    > the
    > RAM.
    >
    > The ques let you know if there are any other bottlenecks. A server work
    > que
    > length over 5 for any amount of time is indicitive of a proc bottleneck.
    >
    > High disk ques show a slow disk subsystem. Combine that with high page
    > usage
    > and you will see a massiv eperformance drop when excessive paging occurs.
    >
    > I don't have the link, but there used to be excel macro that you could
    > dump
    > raw perfmon data into (csv file) and would pinpoint bottlenecks.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Philip Herlihy" wrote:
    >
    >> I have a laptop running XP SP2, with 768Mb of main memory (I've always
    >> thought this was a lot!). I've played around with the various
    >> performance
    >> counters, especially the memory ones, but I'm struggling to interpret the
    >> results. What's the surest way to assess whether more memory would speed
    >> things up?
    >>
    >> --
    >> ####################
    >> ## PH, London
    >> ####################
    >>
    >>
    >>
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Memory Windows XP