rec.autos.simulators

by **Chris Shearbur** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:43:15

What is the formula for determining what virtual memory settings to use?

Thanks in advance...

by **John Pancoas** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:17:57

Chris, in general, 2.5 times your physical memory. Fwiw, if you have a
lot of memory, I've always just let Windows handle it, with no problems.
384 rambus here for reference.

John

by **adsale** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 08:27:28

> What is the formula for determining what virtual memory settings to use?

> Thanks in advance...

Here we go again......one for the FAQ :-)

Well, I usually try to figure out how much memory I could possibly need,
ad libbing it, then multiply by 2, currently running at 1 gig of virtual
memory with 384 MB of RAM, WinXP recommends 575

Will I ever need that much, probably not, but I have the HD space so I
err on the side of caution

Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy

http://www.theuspits.com

"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--

by **Carl Ribbegaard** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:06:13

You can look at the Peak memory usage in the Task Manager.
Just open up as many apps as you ever will.
I'm having 512 mb ram, and I've never exceeded 380mb used memory. Hence I
can disable virtual memory, by setting it to 0 mb for all disks.
WinXP complains a little about not being able to do crashdumps of the
memory, but I could care less... (I'll never ever examine the memory at a
crash, promise... I'll just change the video driver ;-)

The formula 2xRam is not valid theese days. It's from the old days, when
memory was expensive :-)

/Carl

by **James Pickar** » Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:58:08

If your looking for speed, change the Virtual memory paging file so it
stores on a different physical hard disk, that way it reads from two disks
simultaneously, instead of just the one.

Or, just get some sort of Raid 5 SCSI setup.. :)

James

by **twenty-fou** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 02:34:54

example.. 384 (actual physical memory) x 1.5 = 576 (cache file size)

set your min (initial) and max file size to the same number of 1.5
times your actual memory. that will create a 'static' cache file and
slightly improve performance. the hardrive wont 'thrash' as much.

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:43:15 GMT, "Chris Shearburn"

>What is the formula for determining what virtual memory settings to use?

>Thanks in advance...

by **Chris Shearbur** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:17:42

By physical memory you mean RAM, right?

> example.. 384 (actual physical memory) x 1.5 = 576 (cache file size)

> set your min (initial) and max file size to the same number of 1.5
> times your actual memory. that will create a 'static' cache file and
> slightly improve performance. the hardrive wont 'thrash' as much.

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:43:15 GMT, "Chris Shearburn"

> >What is the formula for determining what virtual memory settings to use?

> >Thanks in advance...

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 07:41:42

yes..that's my take.
dh

by **twenty-fou** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:18:11

yes. :)

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:17:42 GMT, "Chris Shearburn"

>By physical memory you mean RAM, right?

by **twenty-fou** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:40:45

also, you can increase the cache file by more than 1.5 times but your
actual RAM will prevent windows from effectively using the extra size
created. to my knowledge, windows (not even NT or XP) is able to do
that. :[

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:18:11 -0400, twenty-four

>yes. :)

>On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:17:42 GMT, "Chris Shearburn"

>>By physical memory you mean RAM, right?

by **Carl Ribbegaard** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:06:27

Why would you want a cache-file that big?
I mean swapping that amount data from the memory, would make the PC so
slow...
If you are a simracer and has >=384 RAM you need no swap cache.
If you are editing wideos, and the diskcache is used, it will take forever
to do whatever you are doing.... Just add more ram.

> example.. 384 (actual physical memory) x 1.5 = 576 (cache file size)

> set your min (initial) and max file size to the same number of 1.5
> times your actual memory. that will create a 'static' cache file and
> slightly improve performance. the hardrive wont 'thrash' as much.

> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 22:43:15 GMT, "Chris Shearburn"

> >What is the formula for determining what virtual memory settings to use?

> >Thanks in advance...

by **rrevve** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:31:24

>Why would you want a cache-file that big?
>I mean swapping that amount data from the memory, would make the PC so
>slow...

The entire swapfile isn't swapped back and forth to memory.
Just the tiny portions that are needed.

You are VERY wrong.

Incredibly bad advice, sir. I hope no one takes it.

Have a better one.

by **Chris H** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:50:54

There's a very good analysis of swap file (Win98/Millennium) usage here:
www.aumha.org available by doing a site search on "swap file." Remember
there's a difference between the Win9x line which uses a swap file and
Windows XP which uses a pagefile system. Systems these days are using
primarily 256 MB of RAM and above, and there is very little need to adjust
what the operating system (especially Windows XP) sets up by itself. Check
out the information in "Memory Management in Win98 and ME."
--
Chris H.

> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:06:27 +0200, "Carl Ribbegaardh"

> >Why would you want a cache-file that big?
> >I mean swapping that amount data from the memory, would make the PC so
> >slow...

> The entire swapfile isn't swapped back and forth to memory.
> Just the tiny portions that are needed.

> You are VERY wrong.

> >If you are a simracer and has >=384 RAM you need no swap cache.

> Incredibly bad advice, sir. I hope no one takes it.

> Have a better one.

by **rrevve** » Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:16:40

>There's a very good analysis of swap file (Win98/Millennium) usage here:
>www.aumha.org available by doing a site search on "swap file." Remember
>there's a difference between the Win9x line which uses a swap file and
>Windows XP which uses a pagefile system. Systems these days are using
>primarily 256 MB of RAM and above, and there is very little need to adjust
>what the operating system (especially Windows XP) sets up by itself. Check
>out the information in "Memory Management in Win98 and ME."

>Chris H.

That's really cool, Chris, but you're not trying to tell us,
as Mr. Ribbegaardh did, that a 384MB user doesn't
need a swapfile ... are you?

Also, you don't agree with Mr. Ribbegaardh that
having a large swapfile uses more RAM ... do you?

I hope not.

:)

>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:06:27 +0200, "Carl Ribbegaardh"

>> >Why would you want a cache-file that big?
>> >I mean swapping that amount data from the memory, would make the PC so
>> >slow...

>> The entire swapfile isn't swapped back and forth to memory.
>> Just the tiny portions that are needed.

>> You are VERY wrong.

>> >If you are a simracer and has >=384 RAM you need no swap cache.

>> Incredibly bad advice, sir. I hope no one takes it.

>> Have a better one.

by **Carl Ribbegaard** » Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:39:03

You misinterpret me.
I'm suggesting that if you have 384Mb ram, and if you do work that requires
you to use like 600Mb Ram, you need more ram. Comprende?

The swap-file is used when the Ram cannot hold any more data.
From the WinXP helpfiles:

> That's really cool, Chris, but you're not trying to tell us,
> as Mr. Ribbegaardh did, that a 384MB user doesn't
> need a swapfile ... are you?

> Also, you don't agree with Mr. Ribbegaardh that
> having a large swapfile uses more RAM ... do you?

> I hope not.

> :)

rec.autos.simulators

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings

Virtual Memory Settings