Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Virtual memory size

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Virtual memory size

    Hi
    I have win xp pro
    Memory=2G
    It's better to make the virtual memory to 0
    it will make the windows faster?

  • #2
    Re: Virtual memory size

    No, it will not make it faster. It is best to leave the setting as the default or use System managed size selection.
    1 1 was a racehorse.
    2 2 was 1 2.
    1 1 1 1 race 1 day,
    2 2 1 1 2

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Virtual memory size

      As BigB (biggles) said, it won't do what you want. The theory says that one should have 1.5 times more virtual memory than the amount of physical one. At the size of your memory, it is irrelevant. I would leave the size as it was set by XP. Don't forget that the OS will expand it as necessary (so, if you are short in virtual memory, it will get bigger by itself).
      More than that, by setting the size of the virtual memory to 0, you will not be able to dump the memory to your disk in case of a crash, so you won't be able to analyze what caused the crash. Even in cases that the swap file (the virtual memory) should be moved to another hard disk, the theory states that a swap file of 50MB should be left on the boot drive for dump.
      I would suggest you read some articles related to Virtual Memory:
      - http://computer.howstuffworks.com/virtual-memory.htm
      - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
      - http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;555223

      Sorin Solomon


      In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.
      -

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Virtual memory size

        For what its worth, consider:
        Fixed rather than dynamic size swap file (less slowdown due to growth / shrinkage
        Defrag volume first so swap file is contiguous
        If you have two physical drives, put the swap file on a different one to the OS
        Tom Jones
        MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
        PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
        IT Trainer / Consultant
        Ossian Ltd
        Scotland

        ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Virtual memory size

          AFAIK the manual setting rule of thumb - amount of RAM * 1.5-2
          ________
          Magic flight
          Last edited by DYasny; 6th March 2011, 18:01.
          Real stupidity always beats Artificial Intelligence (c) Terry Pratchett

          BA (BM), RHCE, MCSE, DCSE, Linux+, Network+

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Virtual memory size

            The last two posters could have benefited from actually reading Sorinso's post before posting. 1 duplicated part of Sorinso's answer, and another said something slightly contrary to Sorinso's post. However, Sorinso has it right in both areas.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Virtual memory size

              Originally posted by johnlgalt View Post
              The last two posters could have benefited from actually reading Sorinso's post before posting. 1 duplicated part of Sorinso's answer, and another said something slightly contrary to Sorinso's post. However, Sorinso has it right in both areas.
              Thanks for your helpful and informative comment above.

              Based on many years experience with Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista, I have a personal preference for fixes size swap files rather than leaving Windows to handle it by itself. As stated, the reasons are:
              Auto growth and shrinkage of the file slow the machine down to a crawl while this is happening, with a fixed size file this will not happen

              Ideally the file should be contiguous, which it will not be if it can grow and shrink.

              I am aware that other people hold differing opinions and, as often in the world of IT, there is no definite right or wrong solution.
              My comments above and here were based on a reading of the full thread.
              Tom Jones
              MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
              PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
              IT Trainer / Consultant
              Ossian Ltd
              Scotland

              ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Virtual memory size


                I can only say that given the fact the OP did not state anything regarding the uses of his computer, it is difficult to see what will be the best configuration for the swap file.
                At the first glance, an XP computer with 1gig RAM should only need a small swap file. And certainly it will not grow often.
                But what if the machine is used for any type of CAD? Video editing? Audio editing? Anything that is memory intensive? The situation will change for sure.
                The conclusion of all this is that there is no right way to handle the virtual memory that will be universally fit to any machine, any OS and any purpose. Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.
                This is why:
                1) one should post as much information as necessary (and even more, if exist) in his question;
                2) there is always need for more than one opinion.

                May we all leave long and prosper !!

                Sorin Solomon


                In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.
                -

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Virtual memory size

                  You make take my comments any way you would like - however:
                  • Sorinso was the only person to post *links* giving support and backup.
                  • Sorinso, myself, and many other users here have *also* garnered 'many years of experience' using Windows OSs, with me it has primarily been Windows XP (starting with Beta testing) and Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003.


                  I realize that your post was your personal preference, but as Sorinso mentioned, making it a fixed size is adding a limiting factor to your system, and this works best when you know *for a fact* that nothing memory intensive is going to run on that machine, ever. A home user is a much more unpredictable animal than the corporate user, because in the corporate environment people have
                  • set functions that they are supposed to perform on their machines,
                  • an IT support to (supposedly) make sure that their machines are running optimally, and
                  • other factors such as limited access / rights, AD, etc.

                  The home user typically doesn't have these sort of checks and balances to help keep them in line - so today, a person who says that they will use the machine only for email and web browsing, tomorrow may all of a sudden decide to start doing home video editing when they learn from a friend that it is easy, that their current setup (machine, camera, etc) has every thing required in terms of interfaces, etc. All of a sudden, a limited swap file will start to become a PITA to them rather than a benefit.

                  The unpredictable nature of the end user justifies keeping the swap file open and expandable. Perhaps it is your own personal choice to keep it at a fixed size, and perhaps this works for the users that you support. But in my opinion this is not a very good idea. Keep your HD defragmented so that, if it needs to be expanded by the OS, it has a nice, free and clear open space to do so. However, limiting the OS in ways that the average home user will not be able to understand what is going on and why it is going on is simply not a very good decision.

                  Hence my comments before.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Virtual memory size

                    JohnGalt, your information just added could have been included in the discussion instead of the unhelpful comment further up.

                    Maybe I am blind but I could see NO duplication of Sorinso post by Ossian or DYasny posts but rather they complimented each other. I also don't see either of them complaining about each others comments.

                    If anyone else wants to add further USEFUL information to this thread, please do otherwise this flame has just been extinguished.

                    Two week ban for any further comments NOT on topic.
                    1 1 was a racehorse.
                    2 2 was 1 2.
                    1 1 1 1 race 1 day,
                    2 2 1 1 2

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Virtual memory size

                      PM I received from JohnGalt.

                      My apologies for this post:

                      http://forums.petri.com/showpo...39&postcount=6

                      I was trying to make the point that Sorinso's post was the most applicable given the limited info we knew about the OP's task list, experience level and working environment.

                      I did focus more on what they said and less on emphasizing that Sorinso's advice was more on par with what was presented, and I'll be a lot more careful on being less inciting and more helpful and on-topic.

                      Considering I am an admin at 2 boards and moderate at a few, I am more than embarrassed by the whole situation - I honestly wasn't trying to flame, I was trying to make sure the user really and truly considered Sorinso's posts first and foremost.

                      For some reason, I have no idea why, I didn't find my post inciting at all - until Tom Jones replied.

                      If you don't mind, I'd like to also post this in that topic - or, even better, if you would, that'd be great.
                      1 1 was a racehorse.
                      2 2 was 1 2.
                      1 1 1 1 race 1 day,
                      2 2 1 1 2

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X