rec.autos.simulators

a) Get more RAM!
b) Close some applications in the background...
c) Lose the application that has out of control memory leakage...

VM is NOT a good thing to rely on at all for ***... so since that IS the
topic (so eloquently said by Sir Scalawag)... the topic then becomes
somewhat moot.

But, I am a student (or try to be) of logic... and I just can't resist
blowing a gapping wide hole in that link he posted.

I'll losely quote the same article, and have some questions I hope someone
can answer for me in the end... which brings us full circle to the original
poster's request... which we'll try to answer...

"I suggest placing it on your fastest HD, on the Partition with the most
free space. "... and briefly after that... "The point is to have no
Swap-File, or an empty Swap-File when you Defragment the drive you want your
'Permanent Swap-File' on."

OK... so what they are saying is this (minus a bit of other repetitious
advice):

1) You want to put your swap file on the biggest partition
2) Ideally... on a second drive (mentioned in the repetitious leave-outs).
3) That partition should not be fragmented.

I disagree with #1 and #2, but wholeheartedly agree with #3. Here is why:

They totally contradict themselves...

They say... assumably put the swapfile on a defragmented harddrive because
fragmentation of the pagefile will simply increase the read times of an
already slowpoke rate (HD read times compared to direct from RAM read
times). This is good advice... I concur 100%

But in the same advice, they tell you to place it on your biggest HD...
assumably on a partition where other data resides (since they make no
mention of a dedicated partition... and this is the crux of my point).
Then... they tell you to let the pagefile shrink/expand on its own as
needed. Well folks... you place the Min setting as something different than
max setting... then only use your min setting for a while (you are typing a
letter, surfing the net, and reading RAS at the same time)... then decide to
save a couple letters you finished up to that drive (no mention of a
dedicated partition remember)... then you open up some more apps (like
another IE window from a link in RAS, etc., etc.) the swapfile increases
beyond the minimum setting, and creates more pagefile as needed... you now
have just achieved fragmentation (that little file[s] you just saved is
quite possibly right smack dab in the middle of your pagefile on the HD
cluster order). Which as they have already assumpably eluded to... is the
worst thing that can happen to VM (which I'll concur with that point).

So... I will overcome this glaring oversight by them with a simple
suggestion (which I have posted in earlier posts here on this topic). We
create a dedicated partition on your Hard Drive. Then we set the Min/Max to
be the same. Windows loads... pagefile is created (without fragmentation
because we are not using that partition for anything else other than the
pagefile itself, and it is created in a single swipe block of set size.)

Now comes the $25,000 question... How big should I make that partition?
Funny... haven't we just come full circle to the original poster's question?

This is where I suggest 2.5x the physical memory (unless of course you want
to take their advice, and just use the rest of your drive as the swap file
partition and leave no room for data... remember.... we don't want to
fragment the pagefile as per your own website's suggestion...). At this
point, you have a "loose rule of thumb of a set size" (something to at least
answer the partition size question, without wasting the rest of the drive...
leaving no room for data... or at the very least wasting a chunk of your
harddrive by not using it at all).

So... at this point (as that webpage also said), if you put a lid on the
VM... you may encounter "out of memory error". They are absolutely correct.

But my answer to that is:

If you are maxing out your RAM, and 2.5x the RAM in your VM... its just a
good ol' fashion time to:

GET MORE RAM... you need it desperately, as if the chugging of your machine
hasn't already told you that when you reached 2X RAM levels even...

If this machine is for ***... and you are maxing out 2.5X RAM... your FPS
must be in the doghouse, and I cannot even comprehend how you could put up
with that performance...

Also, a few interesting things I wanted to point out:

That website posted by Scalawag had this interesting footnote "Portions of
this report have been reproduced from articles and FAQS in Microsoft
newsgroups and Acel216's Windows Tip Site."

Well now... aren't we discussing this topic in a newsgroup as well? Don't be
fooled by the "Microsoft Newsgroups" reference... these are the same guys
who suggest fixing bugs.... with more bugs (seriously guys... they do...)

Isn't that Acel216 site yet another "self professed authority" as you claim
is what makes my theory wrong? Wouldn't we all just be speculating then? But
yet... I emplore you to poke a hole in "our theory" of 2.5X RAM, and still
look me in the eye without laughing and tell me the person doesn't just need
more RAM to fulfill their needs.

Next interesting fact:

Scalaway... would you please be so kind as to point me to your sources for
these reports of games that are going to require 320MB of memory to run? I
am VERY interested in those games... as I will be avoiding them like the
plague. No self-respecting project manager would allow a game that requires
320 MB of memory to run. (If you can point me to that Project Manager, I'll
be sure to give his/her name to the website owner of that link you just
posted. I think they said somewhere on their about some Florida Swampland
they had for sale.) This is particularly true when you consider the
"quasi-standard" RAM installation size is currently 128 MB on most NEW
machines sold today (boxed). That would basically exclude their game from
the vast majority of PC owners... something I am SURE the publisher would be
very interested in squashing (talk about an ultra niche market... I only run
256 MB myself...).

Although Scalawag... I suppose that what you are indeed referring to is "HD
space required for installation of the game". If you think that is all
loaded in Memory when you launch the game... your credibility to me is
completely shot to hell.

As for the poor gents who are running 32MB of RAM... That 500 MB pagefile
isn't going to help speed up that computer at all. Time to get more RAM...
particularly if you are *** (which IS what we are talking about... right
Scalawag?)

Anyways... there's my 20 bucks worth ;)

Cheers,

Schumi

All the URLs you post say that if you want to run the same kind of system
(mix of apps) on 32MB machine you'll need a bigger page file than on a
512MB machine - which is of course correct. But that's no contradiction to
the 2x "rule":

If your system needs a page file twice the RAM size during heavy load then
you memory is used efficiently (Windows) under normal circumstances.

If you can run with a much smaller page file you could remove some RAM
without a serious performance drop.

If it needs a bigger page file adding more RAM will speed up your system
under normal load a lot.

All this applies for normal Windows application usage (e.g. Office).

Well maybe an example helps:

Say under heavy load (Windows) your system needs a total of 360 MB to run
(Not getting "out of memory").

Then the 2x rule would tell you that the system (normal load) will run just
fine with 128MB RAM + 256 MB page file.

Less RAM would cause a serious preformance hit: 64MB RAM + 300 MB page file
(5x) will slow your system to crawl - don't even think about 32 + 350...

More RAM will increse the performance but only slightly (i.e. there's a
huge gain going from 64 to 128 but the gain from 128 to 192 won't be as
noticeable)

And yes the system will run fine with 384 MB RAM and a 40MB page file
(0,1x) of course - however you don't really need that much RAM to get a
good performance.

If you're the "all the performance I can get"-guy you'd be going for the
last solution - however if you want the most "bang for the buck" then you'd
probably go for the 128 + 256 approach - mind you memory wasn't always as
cheap as it is today.

That's all the 2x rule tells you. Religiously setting the page file size to
twice the RAM size is nonsense but that's not what the rule is about.

You could also call this rule "1/3 physical rule" because it basically says
that a system will run fine if 1/3 of the needed memory is backed by
physical RAM.
Note: The memory requirements written on the boxes is usually the amount of
physical memory (RAM) required to run this app/game (somewhat) smoothly.

Martin

http://www.racesimcentral.net/
B17 2 requires a swap file around 400 MB and this will become more
common in the future if your swapfile cannot grow to at least 400 meg
you may have problems with many of todays games.

<also from that same url >

Should we have a static swap, or dynamic, if static what size should
it be, where should it live and how do we set it up. These days I
would opt for a semi dynamic swap, that is to say I set a minimum but
no maximum size. As far as size is concerned the old axim used to be
"twice your physical ram plus 10%". I don't beleive this applies
anymore as when this was determined the average user had 16mb and few
apps needed more than 32mb. Also this formula falls down because the
less memory you have the larger the swap required, yet this formula
assigns more swap the more memory you have.

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

<for WWII Online>

8. Almost done. Right click on My Computer and select properties,
performance, and Virtual Memory again. Now set the virtual memory to
what you really want. [With a 256 Meg machine I found that 300 Meg was
not enough to run online but 640 Meg was enough.] Set both the minimum
AND maximum to be that amount so your swap file will never change
size.

I never said that. Andf you've had no credibility with me since you
took the populist stance and said to set your swap file to 2.5x your
system ram.

We are talking theories here so I certainly hope all gamers have at
least 128mb real ram installed. Unless you are still running just old
dos games.The 32mb was used to illustrate that your 2.5x theory
doesn't hold up.

I did. Now read +G's post and the included url.

They never said that. They said the 2.5x rule goes against logic and
is wrong.

Both you and Schumi are making this more complicated than it needs to
be and are probably confusing the hell out of some people. HD space is
cheap so why use any formula at all (as +G said)? You want to play it
safe with no games crashing because you ran out of memory then just do
the followiing and leave it the hell alone.

Set minimum at 300mb.
Set maximum at no limit.

This will ensure just about every game you own will not cause dynamic
changing in size of the swap file and any game that requires more than
300mb will run fine too. Simple.

What size do I make that partition that I am putting my new "dynamic swap
file" on?

Cheers,

Schumi

Cheers,

Schumi

a) Still plagued with the same partition size problem (unanswered byt
hem)...
b) Completely backing up what Martin and I are saying.

Lets start with (A)

Well this guy is worse than the first post you made... he is unsure of even
where to put the swapfile. But again we'll go over the SAME corner those
other links will back you into...

He goes onto say that it is ideal to place your swapfile on another physical
Harddrive. I'll concur witht hat, for the reasons he already mentioned. But
then the guy goes onto say that you should let your partition take up the
rest of your drive...

I to assume that he is saying (reading word for word):

"Go out and put another FAST HD on the secondary IDE channel, and make that
whole drive for your swap file."

Here are some quotes that make me think that...

"As far as the maximum is concerned I would reccomend setting that to the
maximum remaining space on the Hard drive"

WOW... this guy must have money to burn... where do I put my data?

"As to where should it live, this depends on how many hard drives you have.
I mean real HD's not partitions. If you have more than one hd then you
should put your swap on a different HD to your games, preferably on its own
partition."

Yeps... I concur with the whole "other HD on secondary IDE channel".... but
how big should I set this "own partition?"  See above for HIS logic on
that... I am already getting dizzy... but there is more...

"If you have only 1 HD then the swap file should be ideally be placed at the
outer edge of your drive if you have any software that will do this although
realistically the performance gains for doing this are not worth the extra
trouble.

OK... but what if this swapfile increases as needed (which is what he is
suggesting). Would you not theoretically fall off the end of the earth so to
speak if you needed more than your "minimum size" that is now set at the END
of the drive? Obviously it will not be the case.... but Windows will place
that pagefile overflow somewhere else on the drive.... can you say
"fragmentation?" Hehe... this guy is going to need a massive shoehorn to
pull his foot out of his mouth.

At the end of the day, and after we finish running in his circles.... he and
the other sites you have posted still haven't answered the $25,000.00
question. How big do I make that partition you speak of? More importantly
asked to the latest guy... where do I put my data after I allocate the whole
drive to my swapfile (without getting fragmentation as he also suggests is
bad... as do I)

OK... now onto article (B).

I like this guy... he is totally saying the exact same thing that I am.

Point in case:

"Now set the virtual memory to what you really want. [With a 256 Meg machine
I found that 300 Meg was not enough to run online but 640 Meg was enough.]
Set both the minimum AND maximum to be that amount so your swap file will
never change size.".

Hmmm.... just what I suggested. Also... according to my calculator... 256MB
(RAM) x2.5 (my suggestion) = 640 MB (his suggestion).

This guy has now told you what your partition size should be. Max is set to
640MB... tack on 10MB for hidden system info... and you have a partition
that is:

a) Set in size
b) not fragmented
c) same size swap (min/max equal, and does not bother the CPU/HD when adding
removing... since it is not "resizing" everytime).
d) formula = 2.5 x RAM.

Now we'll get onto the 32 MB "theory" topic. Simple... if you are running
32MB of RAM, and your system needs more.... don't up your VM size... it'll
still run like a dog. Just go out and buy more RAM to fulfill your needs...

Also... please don't take these posts as a personal attack on you. I have a
hard-on for those guys who run out and say the other guys are wrong... yet
their logic is totally flawed, or they leave big gapping question marks in
relation to direct issues.

In fact... I think I will mail these bozos, and see what their partition
size suggestion is... Then after they give me a straight answer I'll ask
them:

"OK... you say a 512MB partition (just a number I made up)... great. But now
why not simply allocate your swapfile to min/max 512 MB and save your CPU/HD
from the redundant task of resizing all the time... You say that you don't
want fragmentation on your swapfile... and it is now on a dedicated
partition without any other data... what is the point of NOT putting a
min/max of equal value on that partition to fill it up and stop the resizing
performance hits?" I'll assume that they don't have an answer...

Cheers,

Schumi

Look at my first post... 1 line suggestion. You sir are the one making this
a lot more confusing, and so are the guys who's links you sent.

Again mate.... can you answer the $25,000.00 question? What size should I
set my partition that your links are suggesting? Simple question actually.

Cheers,

Schumi

If you understand the rule the way you seem to do: "No matter what - always
use twice the RAM size as swapfile" then of course it is wrong - I already
said that in my previous posts btw.

You're approaching this thing from the wrong end here. Don't start with the
available RAM and try to calculate the page file size. You'd have to start
with how much memory (RAM plus swap file) you system NEEDs.
The 2x rule will then tell you how much RAM (and swapfile) you'll need for
an optimal (in the sense of "bang for the buck") system (see my previous
post for an example).

Of course you can say "screw it" and buy more RAM (and use a smaller swap
file) and "violate" the rule in the high performance direction.
This will get you a slight performance increase for a lot of (well at least
some) money.
If you have more than enough money then that that's the way to go: buy as
much RAM as you can fit in there and use a minimal swapfile. But if you
have to think about how much money to spend the 2x rule is a good
instrument to determine your needs.

So the 2x rule is more a "management rule" than a performance thingy - it
tells you how much RAM to get - not what to set your swap file size to with
a given amout of RAM.

Martin

Hi Schumi and others
I've pasted an article I found on the web some time ago that explains how to
work out what you need, rather than what anyone else says you need.
Dont remember there its from, makes a lot of sense to me though.
Hope its of use.

Mark

Calculating Virtual memory

Before you can set your Virtual memory youll want to get an idea of what to
actually set it too. Some recommend using a general formula, e.g. Physical
RAM*2.5. This is incorrect however. Using that formula, a person with 16MB
RAM should set 40MB, while a person with 128MB RAM should set 320MB. Clearly
the person with little RAM needs a greater amount of Virtual memory than the
person with a lot of RAM.

To begin with, let Windows manage your virtual memory settings. Then install
System monitor. Click on Start, Settings, Control panel, Add/Remove
programs. Select the Windows set-up tab & then System tools. Select System
monitor & install it.

Reboot your system for the changes to take effect.

Open up System monitor (Click on Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools,
System Monitor), select Edit then Add item. Add Swapfile size  These are the
items that System monitor will now track for you. You can remove/add other
items by clicking on Edit then Add/Remove item.

Over the next few days load up System monitor & let it track your Swapfile
size. Click on Options then Chart & set the update interval as you see fit I
d recommend setting it to 30 seconds or 1 minute, depending on how long you
intend to be monitoring for. Make sure to Start logging (Click on File then
Start logging) & save the logs so that youll be able to reference usage
over the days.

It would be best to start tracking your usage when you go to play a game or
something that will put your PC under a bit of stress. Run a few time-demos
or play Unreal tournament against some bots. This will give you an idea of
your Virtual memory needs, however dont go overboard with the testing you
want to track normal usage, not excessive usage.

The graph to be concerned with is the Swapfile size. Once youre satisfied
with your monitor its time to consult your log. Open the sysmon.log (or
whatever you saved it as) with Notepad.

Unfortunately the size is saved in byte size, rather than in MBs. To
convert into MBs, take the largest value from the log & divide it by
1048576 (1024*1024). So in the above example it would be
113246208/1048576=110MB (108 rounded up). Obviously you should only be
concerned with calculating the highest value, rounding up to the nearest 10
MBS, e.g. if you get 143.8MB round it up to 150MB.