then run your window word, excel etc.
then run IE5 and email program.
> "Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used."
> Without attempting to get into a debate/argument over this, this above
> statement is very false.
> Virtual Memory is 'generally' most used in 2 occurrences. One is obvious,
> the other not so much, and is the reason the above statement is false.
> Virtual Memory useage:
> 1) When you run out of Physical Memory (hence the term "swapping" from
back
> in the day when RAM was maxxing out at 32MB, etc. on Mobos)
> 2) Dumping of unused but unexpired Memory Buffers (Dynamically allocated
by
> Windows).
> #2 is the big one, and why 2.5x RAM is a generally well accepted formula.
> Those of you running windows2000, open up Task Manager. Then make sure you
> have 2 columns (generally not shown by default), and 3 in total.
> 1) Mem Useage
> 2) VM Size
> 3) Mem Delta
> Watch those 3 side-by-side. Keep it on top... now start doing some things.
> Watch as the Memory Delta spikes, and is then usually sent to "Mem Usage".
> Mem Usage is your Physical Memory. Then watch some more, you'll start to
see
> Mem Usage go up, and then drop down again, and VM Size will slowly creep
up
> as you do certain things. You have not run out of physical memory, but
> rather, Windows is dynamically allocating those 'currently unused' memory
> buffers to VM.
> The reason that 2.5 comes into play, is that Windows will do such to
certain
> point, but is careful not to allocate too much, because there will come a
> time perhaps that the 'stored memory buffers' may be called upon later...
> which is best run from physical memory... so it will bring it back to
> physicaly memory, and run it from there (better performance... read once
> from disk, and run from physical memory after that.... until it is deemed
an
> 'old memory buffer' by windows. You basically can allocate 2X your RAM
> without too much problem, but the extra 0.5 is actually a "safety buffer"
to
> allow a little bit more flexibility.
> You can actually see Layman's Settings inside win2k that will actually
help
> you manage your VM better.
> Anyone seen the "optimize performance for: foreground|background|even"
> setting? That is directly setting the "dynamic VM allocation" and telling
> Windows under what conditions you plan to run your applications.
> Meaning, if you run a lot of progs from the taskbar, or minimized (a
server
> is a good example of this)... you want to optimize your performance for
> "background applications". This ensures that Windows will still keep a
> healthy amount of Physical RAM available in Physical Memory for those
> applications that are minimized/background. Otherwise, by virtue of
Window's
> design, you would be swapping from your VM everytime something called on
> those apps from outside (ala servers), and that would reduceperformance
> quite drastically, and cause unnecessary HDD usage overall.
> BUT... if you use that box just for ***, and want to free up as much
> memory as possible for the app that is in the foreground (ala games), then
> you do the opposite... since you want as much ram as possible while
playing
> to be dedicated to the game (so you aren't swapping as much).
> ALSO... if you are doing things like Office Duties, and are one of those
> people like my wife who can have as many as 20 apps open at the same
time...
> you are best to set the optimization for "even". This will treat all as
> equal, and dump to VM regardless of application status, or current window
> activity... thus giving more freedom for another app you might open.
> Anyways... m***of the story (sorry for being so long winded) is:
> Virtual Memory is not JUST for when you run out of Physical Memory... it
is
> used all the time, and Windows will dump/allocate to that pagefile at
> will/requirement. When it dumps, is an OS kernel decision... but it will
> dump (it'll dump during boot even... when you theoretically have the most
> free RAM available)
> Anyways, that's my 2 cents...
> Cheers,
> Schumi
> > >>So if I have 512mb of ram than I should set my swap file to 1.28gb?
> > >>This is the same logic that says you should set your agp aperature to
> > >>1/2 your system ram. Both are logically wrong if you really analyze
> > >>why. I'll let you figure out why.
> > >Can you help out those of us who don't have any IDEA about this...?
> > >Eldred
> > Because the more ram you have then the less swap file will be used.
> > The more video ram you have the less the AGP aperature needed. See how
> > using 2.5x your system ram for the swap file is illogical now? It all
> > depends on the game/program anyway, you just need to find a safe
> > number that your most ram hungry game will run in. That's why I now
> > let windows manage it, so long as I have plenty of free space on C: I
> > don't have to be concerened with if my swap file is large enough for
> > game X. I've ran my system with a dynamic swap file and a permanent
> > fixed size and I don't see any benefit to having a permanent one. I
> > know the theory why it is better, but having 256mb of ram I just don't
> > see a difference. Anyway, if you only had 32mb of ram and you set the
> > swap file to 2.5x then you would have a swap file of only 80mb. That
> > is no where near enough for many of todays games. B17-2 requires about
> > 600mb, they are saying the same for WWII Online also. So the more ram
> > you have then the smaller the swap file you need. Saying 2.5x your
> > system ram is just a myth that many people think is correct when in
> > fact it is illogical. Spock out.
