Virtua Memory too low
Thursday, September 2, 2004 by alexcc | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Hi,
Anyone can help me with this problem? whenever i load up the objectdock i will get a message that virtua memory is too low. I'm using XP SP1 and DDRam of 512mb. Thanks
Anyone can help me with this problem? whenever i load up the objectdock i will get a message that virtua memory is too low. I'm using XP SP1 and DDRam of 512mb. Thanks
Chris TH
Reply #3 Friday, September 3, 2004 7:01 AM
Reply #3 Friday, September 3, 2004 7:01 AM
Rightclick 'My Computer',
choose 'Properties',
choose 'Advanced' tab,
click 'Settings' in the 'Performance' panel,
choose 'Advanced' tab (again),
click 'Change' in Virtual Memory panel.
Report back here with what it says.
This is just the beginning...
choose 'Properties',
choose 'Advanced' tab,
click 'Settings' in the 'Performance' panel,
choose 'Advanced' tab (again),
click 'Change' in Virtual Memory panel.
Report back here with what it says.
This is just the beginning...
joetheblow
Reply #4 Friday, September 3, 2004 9:34 AM
I did that... it worked for me I think, but you sa, "This is just the beginning..." There is more?
Reply #4 Friday, September 3, 2004 9:34 AM
| #3 by Chris TH - 9/3/2004 7:01:27 AM Rightclick 'My Computer', choose 'Properties', choose 'Advanced' tab, click 'Settings' in the 'Performance' panel, choose 'Advanced' tab (again), click 'Change' in Virtual Memory panel.Report back here with what it says.This is just the beginning... |
I did that... it worked for me I think, but you sa, "This is just the beginning..." There is more?
Chris TH
Reply #5 Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:36 AM
Reply #5 Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:36 AM
It depends on things like:
the amount of MB assigned to the virtual memory compared to your RAM,
whether you lock it down (i.e don't let Windows manage it),
which drive/partition you keep the swap file on,
probably others that I've forgot to include
Adjust & benchmark if you're really keen to get the utmost out of it!
the amount of MB assigned to the virtual memory compared to your RAM,
whether you lock it down (i.e don't let Windows manage it),
which drive/partition you keep the swap file on,
probably others that I've forgot to include
Adjust & benchmark if you're really keen to get the utmost out of it!
joetheblow
Reply #6 Saturday, September 4, 2004 5:29 AM
Reply #6 Saturday, September 4, 2004 5:29 AM
do you suggest spitting a 40gb hard drive into a 10 and 2 15gb? the 10 would be the swap, that is if its possible for it to be split into a 10gb [artistion (can'r remember is windows lowest partition is 20gb or not... or maybe I have that confused with something else?)
MarkMcQ
Reply #7 Saturday, September 4, 2004 6:08 AM
Reply #7 Saturday, September 4, 2004 6:08 AM
10GB for a swap file?? That's wastage. You only need a few hundred MB at most really.
As for parition sizes, you can have as low as you want.
If you have more than on HD on the system, it's better to set the swapfile onto that drive, then Windows won't be trying to access the swapfile at the same time as doing normal operations off the main HD, if the swapfile was installed on that. It's not a noticable increase in performance but it is more efficient.
As for parition sizes, you can have as low as you want.
If you have more than on HD on the system, it's better to set the swapfile onto that drive, then Windows won't be trying to access the swapfile at the same time as doing normal operations off the main HD, if the swapfile was installed on that. It's not a noticable increase in performance but it is more efficient.
craeonics
Reply #8 Saturday, September 4, 2004 6:23 AM
Reply #8 Saturday, September 4, 2004 6:23 AM
craeonics thinks that on a modern machine you have so much RAM that there is no need for virtual memory
MarkMcQ
Reply #9 Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:35 PM
Reply #9 Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:35 PM
You need to have some, because by design Windows always uses swap file, even if there's a ton of RAM to spare.
God knows why though, it's rather impractical really since it'd presumably be faster to write straight to RAM than the page file. Would be nice if they did something about that for Longhorn.
Although by the time that's released, we'll probably be using bio-neural gelpacks for memory then....
God knows why though, it's rather impractical really since it'd presumably be faster to write straight to RAM than the page file. Would be nice if they did something about that for Longhorn.
Although by the time that's released, we'll probably be using bio-neural gelpacks for memory then....
craeonics
Reply #10 Saturday, September 4, 2004 2:10 PM
Reply #10 Saturday, September 4, 2004 2:10 PM
I switched it off, I think. I set the swap size to zero and even though the taskmanager claims the system still is using virtual memory, I can't find the swapfile itself anywhere.
By the time Longnose comes out, I'll be old and grey.
By the time Longnose comes out, I'll be old and grey.
Chris TH
Reply #11 Sunday, September 5, 2004 2:02 AM
That's something I never even thought to try.
How much RAM do you have?
How well does your system run?
Reply #11 Sunday, September 5, 2004 2:02 AM
| I switched it off |
That's something I never even thought to try. How much RAM do you have?
How well does your system run?
joetheblow
Reply #12 Sunday, September 5, 2004 7:54 AM
Reply #12 Sunday, September 5, 2004 7:54 AM
Well, technically my system is on the low end. Its a Celron 2.40 Ghz 256 Ram. I would have gotten 512 but I was (and still am) on a budget. Technically I wasn't 'supposed' to be using high end software anyway. At worst I have my train simulation program but that is it.
So the choice is for me, to get more memory, get a second hard drive, or just wait until I get my next PC about a year from now (Dell XPS!!! I can't wait! Hate the current case look though... might make myself one or be lazy and buy another one)
BTW:
I heard that too, but is it true? Much like I 'heard' that turning off you computer hurts it as much as leaving it on.
Silly me, didn't do much investigating on those stories
So the choice is for me, to get more memory, get a second hard drive, or just wait until I get my next PC about a year from now (Dell XPS!!! I can't wait! Hate the current case look though... might make myself one or be lazy and buy another one)
BTW:
| #2 by WOM - 9/3/2004 6:26:01 AM I was once told, multiply your ram by 2 1/2. |
I heard that too, but is it true? Much like I 'heard' that turning off you computer hurts it as much as leaving it on.
Silly me, didn't do much investigating on those stories
Halluci
Reply #13 Sunday, September 5, 2004 7:59 AM
...NOT a good idea... some people claims it makes your system faster... it DOES NOT, and windoes requires a swap file for its processes too...
and setting swap file size... ill just summarieze what i wrote in a similar thread under the help section:
put your swap file on a partition that does not contain your os.
set minimum size to about 1.5x ur total physical ram.
set ur maximum to around 1 - 2 gigs so you have room to play around with.
Reply #13 Sunday, September 5, 2004 7:59 AM
| I switched it off |
...NOT a good idea... some people claims it makes your system faster... it DOES NOT, and windoes requires a swap file for its processes too...
and setting swap file size... ill just summarieze what i wrote in a similar thread under the help section:
put your swap file on a partition that does not contain your os.
set minimum size to about 1.5x ur total physical ram.
set ur maximum to around 1 - 2 gigs so you have room to play around with.
craeonics
Reply #14 Sunday, September 5, 2004 2:53 PM
Reply #14 Sunday, September 5, 2004 2:53 PM
Don't notice much of a difference in speed, aside from not having to swap apps in and out. Less disk trashing is good, if you ask me. 'Sides, I set some registry keys to load the process into ram instead of scratch (can't recall what exactly though).
craeonics has 640 megs of ram, with an average load of 2-300
craeonics has 640 megs of ram, with an average load of 2-300
CygnusXII
Reply #15 Sunday, September 5, 2004 6:32 PM
Reply #15 Sunday, September 5, 2004 6:32 PM
Even if you disable the Page file, windows will still load a 2Mb, file to handles things. It does it somewhere's else, that the pagefile.sys file. I usually set my min and max & 750Mb because Photoshop Needs, page file access and complains about not having one. What I do, DO.. periodically is turn the page file off to delete it (because it fragments) and then re-turn it back on. The deal with it needing to be on another drive is right on the $$$. Not a nother partition on the same drive, but on a totally different drive on the seconday ide channel, or another drive on scsi id (if applicable) or a USB Drive V2. prefferably. Just so you can have 2 way traffic n the throughput of data.
alexcc
Reply #16 Monday, September 6, 2004 6:51 AM
Reply #16 Monday, September 6, 2004 6:51 AM
well, i have increased the Min pagefile to 1 gb and Max to 2gb, it's still keep eating up the memory. i can see the graph is keep miving up....
craeonics
Reply #17 Monday, September 6, 2004 5:01 PM
Reply #17 Monday, September 6, 2004 5:01 PM
Just found out what happens when you have no pagefile and fire up Photoshop. It starts complaining about how it needs at least 16 megs of swap, warns you that it's "dangerous" to not be using a swap file and then asks you if you want to continue.
Hit "yes" and it works just like it always does, without a hitch.
Stupid Photoshop needs to learn to use the scratch disks I assigned to it.
Hit "yes" and it works just like it always does, without a hitch.
Stupid Photoshop needs to learn to use the scratch disks I assigned to it.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Thursday, September 2, 2004 10:49 PM