| Author |
Topic: RAM file swapping |
Leroy Riggs
From:
Looney Tunes, R.I.P.
|
Posted 12 Apr 2005 6:56 pm |
|
As I understand it, when too many process are run and there is not enough memory, RAM will (or at least used to) swap some of it contents to a 'swap file' for temp storage.
If this is true, does XP do this?
My brothers XP has a lot of disk chatter when he opens new processes and the chatter sometimes continues to the point of being called in excess.
|
|
|
 |
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 2:28 am
|
|
XP handles memory differently than older Operating Systems. you can't compare XP to for example Windows 98 or ME.
Even tho XP handles memory better, it is a memory hog. 256Mb is "real world" absolute minimum and that won't get you much. You need 512Mb of RAM for XP to operate efficiently.
Disc "chatter" can be caused by some running programs such as programs that constantly monitor all systems and such as Norton Systemsworks, or whatever else that is running in the background. Not just the Operating system. I have XP (pro) with 512Mb of RAM and there is very little disk I/O activity.
Go back to your brother and find out how much RAM he has. That is the first step. If it's less than 512MB my recommendation is to upgrade the memory (many commercial PC's are sold with insufficient memory and if it's an older PC that was upgraded to XP it could be low on memory as even 256 wasn't required for Windows ME).
An added thought. The extra disk activity could be caused by spyware. Do a complete spyware (and virus) scan of the system.
[This message was edited by Jack Stoner on 13 April 2005 at 06:37 AM.] |
|
|
|
Dave Potter
From:
Texas
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 5:08 am
|
|
XP calls it virtual memory.
Kinda' rough trying to speculate on questions like that one without knowing at least the system specs, TSRs, startup programs, is "indexing" enabled?, . . . etc, etc.......when was the last defrag done?
[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 13 April 2005 at 06:19 AM.] |
|
|
|
Leroy Riggs
From:
Looney Tunes, R.I.P.
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 7:31 am
|
|
Thanks for the replies.
He has 256k of RAM but he usually has multiple process running at the same time. It sounds as if the RAM size may be the problem.
I looked up Vitrual Memory on the web and it dovetails perfectly with what I understood from the 'old' days.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Ben Slaughter
From:
Madera, California
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 8:20 am
|
|
| The virtural memory information in stored in the "pagefile.sys" You can change the settings of this through the Control Panel. However, the suggestion of a RAM upgrade is highly recommended before you start messing with the pagefile. |
|
|
|
Dave Potter
From:
Texas
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 10:02 am
|
|
<< He has 256k of RAM but he usually has multiple process running at the same time. It sounds as if the RAM size may be the problem.
Advise him to go for more physical memory (RAM).
I checked on my system (P4/3.2Ghz cpu) and with just a couple of browser windows open, my page file usage (virtual memory) is about 270MB, and I have 1Gb RAM. If he only has 256MB RAM, his system must be using virtual memory for just about *everything*, hence all the disk activity. |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 11:19 am
|
|
| Adding RAM may be a waste of money of your goal is to reduce the size of the swapfile. In other words if you have a 100 MB swapfile, and then you add 256 MB RAM, you will probably still have a 100 MB swapfile. |
|
|
|
Leroy Riggs
From:
Looney Tunes, R.I.P.
|
Posted 13 Apr 2005 5:53 pm
|
|
| My brother is reading this post and he is already preparing to upgrade to a full GB. Thanks to all. |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 14 Apr 2005 2:08 am
|
|
RAM is extremely critical in Windows XP, because of the way XP assigns blocks of memory. Also the OS will take up most of the first 128MB, thus if you only have 256MB that is woefully inadequate for a multi-tasking machine.
On older DOS based operating systems such as Win95/98/ME the amount of memory required is much less. Windows XP is not a DOS based operating system (XP only has a limited DOS emulator built in). When DOS was written, 640KB of memory was "all that would ever be needed" and a 40 MB (not GB) hard drive was "huge". |
|
|
|
Jeff Agnew
From:
Dallas, TX
|
Posted 14 Apr 2005 4:12 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| ... if you have a 100 MB swapfile, and then you add 256 MB RAM, you will probably still have a 100 MB swapfile. |
Earnest,
True, but the issue isn't really reducing the size of the swap file/VM. It's reducing the number of times the system has to use it. The OS will usually only turn to VM when it runs out of physical memory (not universally true but good enough for our purposes here). So the more RAM you have installed, the fewer times VM is needed.
This is important because RAM is much faster than VM. |
|
|
|
Dave Potter
From:
Texas
|
Posted 14 Apr 2005 7:29 am
|
|
<< When DOS was written, 640KB of memory was "all that would ever be needed" and a 40 MB (not GB) hard drive was "huge".
Ah, yes, life before bloatware.
And remember the upper memory area, high memory area, and expanded/extended memory? Never could keep those last two straight in my mind, or what passes for one .
Brings back the "good old days" when I used to spend literally hours tweaking my autoexec.bat and config.sys files trying to get best performance out of that old box.
"Gigabyte" was not even on the horizon then.[This message was edited by Dave Potter on 14 April 2005 at 08:32 AM.] |
|
|
|
