list of priorities on virtual memory setting

[mttc]

I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
with D:, how to do that?

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

You can't do that. Are those pagefiles on the same hard disk? Are they
on the same controller?

John

mttc wrote:
> I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
> priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
> with D:, how to do that?

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

On 17 Oct, 15:38, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> You can't do that.  Are those pagefiles on the same hard disk?  Are they
> on the same controller?
>
> John
>
>
>
> mttc wrote:
> > I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
> > priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
> > with D:, how to do that?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i ask for
A. two SATA drive attach on board
B. posibilty to redirect the first 500M (of VM) to ramdrive (I have 3G
ram).

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:

> On 17 Oct, 15:38, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>You can't do that. Are those pagefiles on the same hard disk? Are they
>>on the same controller?
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>mttc wrote:
>>
>>>I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
>>>priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
>>>with D:, how to do that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> i ask for
> A. two SATA drive attach on board

Ok. By default Windows will favour the pagefile on the least busy disk.
Not usually a good idea to place multiple pagefiles on the same hard
disk or to place it on a disk that is in a slave relationship with a
busy disk.

> B. posibilty to redirect the first 500M (of VM) to ramdrive (I have 3G
> ram).

No, while you can have multiple pagefiles you cannot dictate which one
Windows will use and when you consider that the purpose of the pagefile
is to provide additional memory, or to free in use memory to satisfy
other memory demands being made by processes, it defeats the purpose to
place the pagefile on a RAM drive.

John

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting



mttc wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 15:38, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>You can't do that. Are those pagefiles on the same hard disk? Are they
>>on the same controller?
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>mttc wrote:
>>
>>>I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
>>>priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
>>>with D:, how to do that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> i ask for
> A. two SATA drive attach on board

Ok. By default Windows will favour the pagefile on the least busy disk.
Not usually a good idea to place multiple pagefiles on the same hard
disk or to place it on a disk that is in a slave relationship with a
busy disk.


> B. posibilty to redirect the first 500M (of VM) to ramdrive (I have 3G
> ram).

No, while you can have multiple pagefiles you cannot dictate which one
Windows will use and when you consider that the purpose of the pagefile
is to provide additional memory, or to free in use memory to satisfy
other memory demands being made by processes, it defeats the purpose to
place the pagefile on a RAM drive.

John

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 15:38, "John John (MVP)" <audetw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>You can't do that. Are those pagefiles on the same hard disk? Are they
>>on the same controller?
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>>mttc wrote:
>>
>>>I have two page file in seperate volume, so i want to set the
>>>priorities. tel to xp to use first with G: and if need more space use
>>>with D:, how to do that?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> i ask for
> A. two SATA drive attach on board

Ok. By default Windows will favour the pagefile on the least busy disk.
Not usually a good idea to place multiple pagefiles on the same hard
disk or to place it on a disk that is in a slave relationship with a
busy disk.


> B. posibilty to redirect the first 500M (of VM) to ramdrive (I have 3G
> ram).

No, while you can have multiple pagefiles you cannot dictate which one
Windows will use and when you consider that the purpose of the pagefile
is to provide additional memory, or to free in use memory to satisfy
other memory demands being made by processes, it defeats the purpose to
place the pagefile on a RAM drive.

John

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

> No, while you can have multiple pagefiles you cannot dictate which one
> Windows will use and when you consider that the purpose of the pagefile
> is to provide additional memory, or to free in use memory to satisfy
> other memory demands being made by processes, it defeats the purpose to
> place the pagefile on a RAM drive.

the problem is, XP put 10% of page on page files even have free
mempory, and i not sure that the hit of algorithm is best on real
word.

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:
>>No, while you can have multiple pagefiles you cannot dictate which one
>>Windows will use and when you consider that the purpose of the pagefile
>>is to provide additional memory, or to free in use memory to satisfy
>>other memory demands being made by processes, it defeats the purpose to
>>place the pagefile on a RAM drive.
>
>
> the problem is, XP put 10% of page on page files even have free
> mempory, and i not sure that the hit of algorithm is best on real
> word.

Don't rely on what you see in the Task Manager to evaluate pagefile
usage, the figure reported there is misleading. Use Perfmon to get
accurate figures.

John

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

> Don't rely on what you see in the Task Manager to evaluate pagefile
> usage, the figure reported there is misleading. Use Perfmon to get
> accurate figures.

i look with CF Fire Monitor, and also with Perfmon, couters:
Page Fault
Transition Fault/Sec
Page/Sec

I see there lot of activities even I have 450M phisical free (frash xp
only with 20 tabs of IE and sql service up). It's simple for me, that
XP look ahead and try to save on the disk pages that look like not on
use. also we not have real control over what DLL cache from usese
system component. So i guess that even my pc have 4g the xp continue
read and write lot of pages.

I try to think about my NEW PC with 8G RAM, but with xp32 (and RAM
DRive over 4G) I not sure that I can stop the obsessive read/write
from disk. also I not sure that xp64 is good choice according the lot
of article that talking about many problems with this way.

what your opinion?

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:
>>Don't rely on what you see in the Task Manager to evaluate pagefile
>>usage, the figure reported there is misleading. Use Perfmon to get
>>accurate figures.
>
>
> i look with CF Fire Monitor, and also with Perfmon, couters:
> Page Fault
> Transition Fault/Sec
> Page/Sec
>
> I see there lot of activities even I have 450M phisical free (frash xp
> only with 20 tabs of IE and sql service up). It's simple for me, that
> XP look ahead and try to save on the disk pages that look like not on
> use. also we not have real control over what DLL cache from usese
> system component. So i guess that even my pc have 4g the xp continue
> read and write lot of pages.
>
> I try to think about my NEW PC with 8G RAM, but with xp32 (and RAM
> DRive over 4G) I not sure that I can stop the obsessive read/write
> from disk. also I not sure that xp64 is good choice according the lot
> of article that talking about many problems with this way.
>
> what your opinion?

The Page Fault & Transition Fault/Sec counters don't necessarily mean
that the system is experiencing hard page faults or that it is
excessively paging in from or paging out to the pagefile. You might
want to look at the Page Reads and Page Writes counters to get a better
idea of what is going on. You might also want to look at the Paging
File object, the pagefile usage may not be as big as you think. You may
find useful information here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...c05_memory_monitoring_specifics.mspx?mfr=true
http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2008/06/10/the-basics-of-page-faults.aspx

As for your "NEW PC with 8G RAM, but with xp32 (and RAM DRive over 4G)"
please note that Windows XP 32-bits cannot fully use 4GB of RAM, some of
the address space in the lower 4GB address range is reserved for use by
some of the PCI devices in your computer, the space reserved depends on
what the devices need but it could be anything between 500MB and 1GB or
more, in turn that address space is not available to the RAM so you
cannot fully use the installed RAM. As for your "RAM DRive over 4G"
please note that this is impossible on Windows XP 32-bits, XP 32-bits
cannot use more than 4GB of RAM so in fact you have no RAM drive on your
installation! The RAM drive must obtain memory allocation from the
Windows Memory Manager so the RAM drive can only obtain memory supported
by the operating system.

John

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

> The Page Fault & Transition Fault/Sec counters don't necessarily mean
> that the system is experiencing hard page faults or that it is
> excessively paging in from or paging out to the pagefile.  You might
> want to look at the Page Reads and Page Writes counters to get a better
> idea of what is going on.  You might also want to look at the Paging
> File object, the pagefile usage may not be as big as you think.  You may
> find useful information here:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr.../askperf/archive/2008/06/10/the-basics-of-pag...
>
Also "pagefile usage" show 12% use even I have free memory. the q is
what happend if I add more 2G to my system. I think that XP continue
use with paging system, and event this is not massive use, I prefare
Control this, or move it to RamDrive.

> As for your "NEW PC with 8G RAM, but with xp32 (and RAM DRive over 4G)"
> please note that Windows XP 32-bits cannot fully use 4GB of RAM, some of
> the address space in the lower 4GB address range is reserved for use by
> some of the PCI devices in your computer, the space reserved depends on
> what the devices need but it could be anything between 500MB and 1GB or
> more, in turn that address space is not available to the RAM so you
> cannot fully use the installed RAM.  

So according that, how I have, if I have only 1.5G?
and by the way, wat is System Cache that use about 250M?

>As for your "RAM DRive over 4G"
> please note that this is impossible on Windows XP 32-bits, XP 32-bits
> cannot use more than 4GB of RAM so in fact you have no RAM drive on your
> installation!  The RAM drive must obtain memory allocation from the
> Windows Memory Manager so the RAM drive can only obtain memory supported
> by the operating system.

please see this product:
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:

>>The Page Fault & Transition Fault/Sec counters don't necessarily mean
>>that the system is experiencing hard page faults or that it is
>>excessively paging in from or paging out to the pagefile. You might
>>want to look at the Page Reads and Page Writes counters to get a better
>>idea of what is going on. You might also want to look at the Paging
>>File object, the pagefile usage may not be as big as you think. You may
>>find useful information here:http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr.../askperf/archive/2008/06/10/the-basics-of-pag...
>>
>
> Also "pagefile usage" show 12% use even I have free memory. the q is
> what happend if I add more 2G to my system. I think that XP continue
> use with paging system, and event this is not massive use, I prefare
> Control this, or move it to RamDrive.
>
>
>>As for your "NEW PC with 8G RAM, but with xp32 (and RAM DRive over 4G)"
>>please note that Windows XP 32-bits cannot fully use 4GB of RAM, some of
>>the address space in the lower 4GB address range is reserved for use by
>>some of the PCI devices in your computer, the space reserved depends on
>>what the devices need but it could be anything between 500MB and 1GB or
>>more, in turn that address space is not available to the RAM so you
>>cannot fully use the installed RAM.
>
>
> So according that, how I have, if I have only 1.5G?

The address space for the PCI devices is reserved at the top of the 4GB
address range so only the last 500MB to 1GB+ of RAM will be unavailable
for RAM addressing, the RAM up to the reserved area will be available so
you will start to run out of RAM addresses around the 3GB+ area. If you
have only 1.5GB of RAM it should all be available.


> and by the way, wat is System Cache that use about 250M?

File Caching
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa364218.aspx
(This is also know as the System Working Set)


>>As for your "RAM DRive over 4G"
>>please note that this is impossible on Windows XP 32-bits, XP 32-bits
>>cannot use more than 4GB of RAM so in fact you have no RAM drive on your
>>installation! The RAM drive must obtain memory allocation from the
>>Windows Memory Manager so the RAM drive can only obtain memory supported
>>by the operating system.
>
>
> please see this product:
> http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

Please see the FAQs for the product, specifically:

Q: Can SuperSpeed products be configured to use memory above 4 GB?

A: Yes, on all 64-bit and some 32-bit server platforms memory
allocations can be made from above 4 GB. On 32-bit platforms the
boot.ini /pae switch must be used...


Q: I have 4 GB of RAM installed but Windows only reports a little over
3 GB. Will SuperSpeed products use the memory above 3 GB?

A: The answer to this question depends on the computer's motherboard
and how it and the operating system are configured to manage memory.
SuperSpeed products utilize only those resources the operating system
recognizes and makes available...

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/faq.php

Windows XP 32-bits cannot use memory above the 4GB range so it cannot be
made available to RAM disks.

John

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

thanks for all.

the system cache is not include cache for page?

So conclusion is, that no way to add on same machine Support with 32
diriver and other stuff, and give memory beyond the old boundary of
3G?

>>Q: Can SuperSpeed products be configured to use memory above 4 GB?
>>A: Yes, on all 64-bit and some 32-bit server platforms memory allocations can be made from above 4 GB. On 32-bit platforms >>the boot.ini /pae switch must be used. When memory above 4 GB is available, allocations are taken first from physical >>memory addresses above 4 GB, and then from addresses below 4 GB.



Or maybe if i migrate to Server2003 32 with intel PAE (I read that
this feature can make problems), it's work fine with RamDisk?
What means "and some 32-bit server platforms " ?

 

[mttc]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

more About system-cache I also read somthing kike that:


XP System Cache Boost
The XP kernel can be loaded into your RAM with a simple registry edit.
This can greatly improve performance since the NT Kernel will always
be in your RAM. With this edit you will allocate roughly 4Mb of your
RAM for the kernel

 

[John John (MVP)]

Re: list of priorities on virtual memory setting

mttc wrote:
> thanks for all.
>
> the system cache is not include cache for page?

If you mean for the pagefile, no.


> So conclusion is, that no way to add on same machine Support with 32
> diriver and other stuff, and give memory beyond the old boundary of
> 3G?

No, on most computers with XP 32-bits the most RAM that you can use is
somewheres around 3GB to 3.5GB, some machines with high end video cards
may only be able to use 2.5 to 2.75GB, it all depends on the devices
installed in the computer.


>>>Q: Can SuperSpeed products be configured to use memory above 4 GB?
>>>A: Yes, on all 64-bit and some 32-bit server platforms memory allocations
>>>can be made from above 4 GB. On 32-bit platforms the boot.ini /pae
>>>switch must be used. When memory above 4 GB is available, allocations
>>>are taken first from physical memory addresses above 4 GB, and then from
>>>addresses below 4 GB.
>
>
>
>
> Or maybe if i migrate to Server2003 32 with intel PAE (I read that
> this feature can make problems), it's work fine with RamDisk?
> What means "and some 32-bit server platforms " ?

It doesn't work with the Standard Server versions, you have to go to
Enterprise versions or better. In my opinion if you need a workstation
with support for more than 4GB RAM you may as well move to the 64-bit
platform. Servers using PAE are more stable in large part because of
the way in which the software and hardware is selected and in the way
that they are maintained and operated after they are setup. Once
properly setup servers do not suffer the same amount of abuse as
workstations or regular home computers, people don't usually "play" with
servers so they are less prone to certain kinds of problems. You don't
have many different persons maintaining the server and you don't install
and uninstall all kinds of things or try all kinds of software or
hardware on servers, hence they are run in a more stable manner than
workstations so they are less prone to PAE problems. See here for
memory support on different Windows versions:

Memory Limits for Windows Releases
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

John