Windows 7
Printed From: Just Flight Forum
Category: Just Chat
Forum Name: Just Chat - General Discussion
Forum Description: Forum for shootin' the breeze about subjects not relating to Flight Simulation or aviation
URL: http://forum.justflight.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7766
Printed Date: 19 Apr 2024 at 7:18am
Topic: Windows 7
Posted By: 737Chris
Subject: Windows 7
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2009 at 11:40pm
|
When Vista came out. . .well I was dissapointed, then I heard they were already whipping out another OS despite vista being flawed. However apparently Windows 7 is actually very good, is this true ? Chris ------------- Generic forum signature |
Replies:
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2009 at 11:52pm
|
It is Vista but with some major flaws fixed (like using twice as much memory for video as necessary, etc). It's still a complete memory hog though. I can't run the RC because of a flaw in the video drivers. SLI causes the system crash, because the drivers can't handle it!!! Not like they haven't had time to get that working... Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2009 at 11:56pm
|
I like it, nice and fast. Very stable during its BETA and now in its RC. Also not a great leap from Vista. If your PC and run Vista then it will also run Windows 7.
I remember the problems I had upgrading to Vista a couple of Months after the release, talk about having to wait a good 5 minutes for it to fully load.
 Why not try Windows 7 your self on a spare HDD? See what you think.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2009 at 11:58pm
|
Does FSX run any quicker on it? Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 12:04am
|
I haven't tried FSX on Windows 7 yet. I've got Windows 7 on a old 5400RPM HDD with its 4MB cache. Compared to the norm 7200RPM and 32MB cache it wouldn't be fair results.
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 2:00am
Load times will not affect how it runs. I really do not understand why people keep equating hard disk speed to processing performance.  I can only put it down to the same people having previously run Windows 98 with 1 Mb of RAM and thinking the swap file was the greatest invention ever.  If you have 4 Gb or more of main system memory, and kill all process and services you don't require, the system will have no reason to use that damn invention they call a swap file. There is much uninformed rubbish spoken about disabling it etc.. in Windows. It isn't disabled on my XP install as it goes nuts if it isn't there (1 Mb will keep it happy for a while but it starts to complain quite quickly), but it is certainly disabled and deleted on my Vista install, and I run FSX all day without issues. The HD is accessed so infrequently it regularly powers down!!! History of the swap file: it was for the days when 1Mb of RAM cost you £500. Today I can buy 8Gb of RAM for £100. So... what spec is the system, and what performance do you get?  Please try it - you might persuade me to reconfigure my HD again. Linux is currently occupying the space Win 7 did.Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: 737Chris
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 2:50am
Load times will not affect how it runs. I really do not understand why people keep equating hard disk speed to processing performance. 
Yup , I know how you feel !   ------------- Generic forum signature |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 7:18am
|
I'll give it an install today. Although I can't see how the seek times are going to be any quicker on a HDD which is 7 years old.
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 11:14am
|
Huh?? Slow seek/read times simply mean it will take 10 minutes to load FS instead of 5! Your oriignal post on the matter suggested that because the HD was slow, FSX will run slow. I don't care how long it takes to load - I care about frames per second which is entirely CPU dependent. I presume the system is of a reasonable spec (e.g. Q6700, 4Gb RAM, etc.?). Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 1:14pm
|
Except, in the case of FSX, drive speed could very well affect how it runs since it spends most of it's time loading in scenery - load times will not affect how it runs but the underlying speed of the drive could do so.
In the context of FSX his post was perfectly valid. Frames per second are not entirely CPU dependent, certainly not if there is a requirement to be almost constantly seeking and loading files from disk to produce those frames - if you had a suitably large floppy disk, do you think FSX would run okay...?
Except it's not a 'damn invention' and even if you have 4GB or more and kill the processes that you are fond of doing and which, as explained before, do a blind bit of difference and risk more problems than it's worth, the system will still use a swap file.
If you HD is accessed so infrequently when running FSX then you must be flying over an ocean - FSX more than any game lives by the hard drive, that's why the install is so huge because of the amount of stuff and frequency it brings in from it.
...and you'd still need a swap file.
There is much uninformed rubbish spoken about how Vista and Windows 7 are memory hogs. As explained numerous times in the past, memory is there to be used not to sit around empty. I can only put it down to the same people having previously run Windows 98 and thinking that having loads of empty RAM was the greatest thing ever... Windows 98 with 1Mb RAM...? 4Gb or more of main system memory? - need to get those units correct... |
VulcanB2 wrote:Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 3:18pm
Thanks for that Magic Man. I thought I was loosing the plot this morning when I saw what Vulcan had posted.
I've had a look at the HDD (the one with Windows 7), and its not quite as old as I thought. It got 7200RPM and an 8MB Cache, so near enough the same as my current ones with FSX.
Vulcan, how do you want FSX? FSX with the two SP's? What do you want the settings put to?
The specs are:
C2D E6850 OC'ed to 3.6GHz
4GB PC2-8500 RAM
2 X ATI HD4870 (512MB)
160GB HDD - Windows 7 x64 RC
Matt.
EDIT: Forgot to say, the resolution will be 1920x1080. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: ConcordeGuy
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 6:44pm
|
I have it now, it's great! So much better than Vista!
------------- Rides a 1999 Kawasaki ZZR600 |
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 8:09pm
|
I was waiting for Techno’s input during his lunch hour. |
Posted By: TomA320
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 8:13pm
| Is it free to Vista users? |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 8:17pm
|
Its free to anyone, while its in RC.
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: Dambuster
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 8:29pm
|
Somehow I'm more looking forward to OSX Snow Leopard than to Windows 7, will transfer to Windows 7 if it's real smooth though. Especially if my hardware will have compatible drivers... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2009 at 10:10pm
As for Windows 7, I like what I've seen so far. I downloaded the beta to try out Black Shark under a 64bit environment and it was better.
|
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 10:30am
| Better in what way Techno? |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 11:17am
|
Black Shark ran better - probably because my 4GB was able to be fully used under the 64bit OS but it was also faster - think that is because even though single threaded, the DX9 graphics system is able to better take advantage of the dual core processor under Vista and Windows 7 - or so I've read in the forums...
But, on it's own, Windows 7 seems a lot snappier than Vista and XP anyway, hard to put a finger on it really. Just opening file explorer and other windows and normal run-of-the-mill operations like that seem smoother. You get the prettiness of Vista gui stuff without the small niggles and snags - and the Vista issue with file copying is gone.
Running Armed Assault under it at full settings was no issue (not that it is on my XP install) but this is on the 7 beta so it seems very polished.
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 11:45am
?????????? Are you lot still using HD controllers that require CPU time? How does the very slight disk access that occurs when you fly affect the sim to such an extent it slows it down? I did mean 1 Mb, not 1 Gb. It was not a typo, but certainly an exaggeration to make a point. The only times I have ever seen the HD directly impact the performance of an application is when the system is living off the swap file, or there are so many processes running in the background that the main app doesn't get much CPU time at all and is interrupted by disk I/O. If no-one disables anti-virus when running processor-intensive apps, this will have a huge impact too as the processor has to divert its attention from running the sim to scanning every disk access.
It's a far better coded sim. Bring up the debug info in-sim - it's using a mere 400 Mb of RAM. It can utilize dual-core under XP, but for some reason it only sees one core and starts in single core mode. If you task switch and set the affinity to all processors, it will use them.
Have you tried SP2 on Vista yet? It seems to have addressed this issue. File copy seems as quick as XP now, no delay (I certainly didn't see it when I copied 400 Mb of data last night - seemed almost instantaneous to the file transfer - far quicker!).
I'd love to get it working. I certainly like the 64-bit side of things (even on Vista). Vista is nice and stable, I just hate the UI layout. Explorer has taken a step backwards IMHO - it is always getting in my way. Wish there was a classic mode or something (if there is, please enlighten me). The bug in explorer is still there. Right-click still doesn't work for me in the main start menu. It does in my other user account - very strange. I'm missing the XP way of search, too. That search bar is extremely annoying. It seems to take longer to boot up now too. I'm not sure why that is. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 2:25pm
|
Interesting. Seems I'm not the only one to be suffering extended boot times as a result of SP2. I see the same as a lot of others - a black screen for ages before the orb appears. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 2:45pm
|
I've installed FSX, with SP1 and SP2. I've switched all traffic off, left the weather to the "Ultra High" setting, switched AA on, leaving lens flare and light bloom off, and set the Plane Detail to low. I then pushed all scenery sliders to the max. I get ~30 - ~50FPS below 3000 feet, and ~50 - ~100FPS above 3000Feet. Also no stutters or lagging. I'll give the same a go in Vista now and see what that comes out like.
Matt.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, that was just FSX alone, no add-ons. In the default A321. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2009 at 8:48pm
Well if the program is constantly loading scenery files from disk it's only logical to assume that a slower disk is likely to casue and overall lower performance than a faster disk. As said, if you could get a suitably large floppy disk and run FSX from there, do you think it would possibly run as smoothly as from a fast hard drive...?
A system will always make use of a page file which is why it shouldn't be removed, you've disabled your page file under Vista which will only hinder performance by causing non backed changes to be retained in memory at the expense of backed stuff being dropped and having to be reloaded. If by processes you mean the standard Windows processes then they are miniscule and not worth the bother of shutting down.
Agreed. I use Avast which allows directory excemptions from scanning, i.e. don't scan any files loaded from the FSX directory tree. Don't think AVG (the free version) allows this so the on access scan is potentially at work when scenery is being loaded.
It's also an old engine, the same as Lock On afaik.
You can do that but I never saw any difference (neither have others on the forums) whereas under Vista and 7 it does seem to make some use of the dual cores. Not the sim itself, it's not coded to take advantage, rather the DX9 stuff if the background I think.
Haven't installed SP2 yet on my laptop, it's sitting in the update list. That's good to hear though if that's finally put right.
Something disabled or removed perhaps...
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 3:29am
No - any new account I create doesn't exhibit this behavior. Only the first admin account.
Hmm. Interesting.
Lots of free memory so not an issue. If it does run out of memory it isn't pretty - the system crashes in ways you never thought possible. Quite dangerous actually as it becomes extremely unstable. I really had to go out of my way to achieve it though. I tested it deliberately to see what kind of margin I had. Lots is the short answer (2 Gb at least with FSX running). I was quite impressed actually. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 11:01am
So why disabled the page file in the first place...?. You are not gaining any advantage and only setting yourself up for problems as you've detailed and already experienced...
You can never have enough memory to be able to do without the page file unless you have more memory than all the programs you are going to use at once plus what the OS wants plus some extra to account for changed and unbacked store.
You've already encountered running out of memory so obviously your decision to turn it off has been proved erroneous - switch it back on, let Windows manage it (since it can manage its memory requirements far better than you can) and leave it alone...
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 4:03pm
No, if you read it correctly, you would see I tested it to see what margin I have. If it crashes because I disabled the swap file, that's my problem. It has never done so in *NORMAL OPERATION*. EVER. Therefore, by definition, there is no problem!!!
Now you're starting to understand (your comments suggest you don't, by a mile).
No, that's not what I said. Read it again please. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 7:07pm
But there is no advantage to be gained from disabling it - only potential issues. So why disable it...? It's there for a reason, it's there to hold unbacked store, it's there because Windows can manage it's memory requirements better with it and can do so better than you.
There is no problem because it doesn't crash? The overall performance is potentially being handicapped by your decision to turn the page file off, it may never crash, doesn't mean there isn't still a problem. You are forcing Windows to drop potentially often used code and minimise its disk cache because it has no choice other than to keep unbacked changes and updates in RAM because it can't page them out.
My comments suggest I don't understand what? The absolute waste of time disabling the page file or what you are trying to achieve?
Either way, what is the reason for disabling it? It has no advantage and only brings possible problems...?
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 7:15pm
|
I disabled it precisely because it forces Windows to cache in memory. To understand the behavior of the swap file in Windows you have to go back to Windows 3.1 or earlier. Windows does *NOT* use it like an emergency memory store when physical memory is low. It uses for operations it just doesn't need to. By disabling it, I'm forcing Windows to live without it, and it is quicker for it (memory will ALWAYS be faster). Please research the history of the swap file and how it is really used. No wonder there is so much mis-understanding. Even this guy hasn't got it right: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php - http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
Note that the problem is NOT with the swap file at all - it is in fact with the Norton software in question. MVP or not - this guy is wrong. This is completely bogus information too:
It should be the maximum you can fit on the disk. Even back in 1997 most systems had sufficient HD space for the full swap file size to be allocated and fixed. This is how I did it, and never suffered a single problem as a direct result. I read plenty about it back then though where people were running out of virtual memory. They ALL had dynamic swap files. Here is why a dynamic swap file is bad for your health (and you could read plenty of stories over at AVSIM about it too): Windows is coded to use it, if it exists. On 98 (and earlier), it was not possible to disable it completely. Even if it was 1 Mb in size, the system was happy. Disable it though, and it became unstable quickly and complained like crazy. I've tested this with every version of Windows since V3.1 (and 3.11) on the then current hardware. I spent hours analysing it. Where things get nasty is in the way it is resized. Our MVP friend doesn't seem to know his computer systems at the machine level. Assume we have a 1024 Mb swap file, that can dynamically resize to up to 4096 Mb. We're using 800 Mb of the 1024 Mb already, and Windows knows this. In quick succession, I come along and demand 400 Mb of memory, NOW. I then fill the memory with junk whilst performing complex computions that hammer the processor. I release 100 Mb. I then make a demand for 500 Mb more memory, but my process has hogged the processor, and the request for more memory got delayed. I try to make a write into the memory that is not yet allocated and...... "Insufficient Virtual Memory". I used to see this error a lot of systems with dynamic swap files. I'd check the swap file size, and it would be say 2500 Mb in size, and not the 4096 Mb it could have been (thus meaning there was actually enough space, if only Windows had allocated it in time which it had clearly failed to do). What just occurred was a RACE CONDITION. My app tried to use the requested memory ahead of Windows being able to supply it, because my app blocked the call that was supposed to resize the swap file. The memory wasn't there, and so it thought it was out of memory (technically, it was). By fixing the swap file to the largest size possible, this race condition is avoided, and so there is no problem. The other option (and the one I took) is to disable it, so Windows doesn't try and allocate to it, avoiding the associated problems. This is also BS (same site as above):
Any application that ever requests "hundreds of megabytes" more memory than they require are total junk and want to be avoided at all costs!! Real programmers NEVER allocate more memory than they require at any one time, and free it at the earliest opportunity. THIS IS BASIC GOOD CODING STANDARDS. Anyone who doesn't understand this is not fit to write commercial software. Given all the above, if you still think I'm wrong for disabling it, there is no hope. Even this MVP guy has it completely BASS ACKWARDS, and wants stripping of the qualification. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 7:59pm
Windows will still 'cache in memory', that's what it does. You are just limiting it from managing its memory the best it can. It knows better than you.
No, it doesn't use it like an emergency memory store, it uses it for unbacked store, stuff that doesn't reside in physical files on the disk. "It uses [it] for operations it just doesn't need to" - what's that supposed to mean...? It uses it for unbacked pages, stuff that doesn't exist anywhere other than in RAM, it doesn't need to use it for that...?
That is just plain wrong. Yes, you are forcing Windows to live without it. No, it's not quicker for it and memory will certainly not be faster at all, let alone ALWAYS because you are forcing it to retain stuff that it otherwise wouldn't have to resulting in progressively less and less available RAM because that stuff that isn't backed and can't be backed because you've cut it off from the page file designed for that purpose has to remain in memory...
Sorry matey, I think it is someone else who needs to do the researching.
Disabling it forces Windows to retain all non-backed stuff. I.e. stuff that has changed, stuff that you've edited or made changes to, stuff that games have made changes to etc. Stuff that doesn't exists as a physical file on disk.
Because there is now no page file Windows cannot move any of this out to disk as part of its memory management, something that it is perfectly capable of doing and something that is can do far better than you, so instead it's forced to drop stuff that is backed on disk, i.e. normal program code in the .exe's you are running, the .dll code that is running, the application and OS code etc. The stuff that is often needed and required and would be far better sitting cached in RAM ready for use, Windows cannot make the best decision on what to drop and what to dump out to the page file to make space because you have forced its hand so it has no choice other than to drop such stuff and then reload it from the physical files later when its needed again.
If you are referring to the part bolded, then that is perfectly valid. It is best to leave Windows manage the size of the page file.
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:03pm
 You don't write software do you? Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:04pm
You've edited the post but I'm not going to really add anything, it's not worth it. However...
Why the hell would you want a fixed page file the maximum you can fit on the disk. Sorry, that's just crackers.
I have best part of 400GB left on my system drive, are you suggesting that should be a fixed page file? Why? Let Windows manage it, it will set an initial size and then adjust it if you ever need more than that space.
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:07pm
I just read your response. No wonder the IT world so is so stuffed up.  If that is really how you think it works.....
You obviously don't know how this works AT ALL. I can't be bothered dragging out all the MS Technical Articles on updating system files, and how copies are held in memory, thus releasing the on-disk copy, and how the disk copy can be updated without affecting the in-memory copy, etc... It is possible to delete system files and not crash the system. God help you on the restart. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:08pm
"You don't write software do you?" -
 Plenty I could say in response to that but I'll just leave the roll eyes to say it all... |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:11pm
Unless I'm sat here marshalling every byte in RAM, I *never* manage the memory. I simply say "Hey, Windows! Give me 4 bytes for this LONG will ya?". It tells me where to find it. If I don't have 4 bytes to allocate - OOME strikes, or a system crash ensues, or something. Who knows. That's the nature of no free memory. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:12pm
| You've turned the page file off, you've made a decision that says "I know better than Windows"... |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:15pm
|
No I haven't. I've told Windows it isn't going to swap out memory from physical memory to the disk. That's all it means in reality. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:18pm
See anything wrong with this code?
|
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:24pm
|
"Whoo, impressive..." What's this, an e-peni' competition or something - blowing my own trumpet is a sad pastime I don't really like doing I'm afraid.
I don't really see anything in the code, means nothing to me, not my field. I could equally drag out something of mine but I can't be bothered.
You've written a few things above suggesting what I've posted is rubbish and I don't know what I'm on about etc. I'm afraid it is you who is wrong matey, far wrong...
Edit:
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 8:38pm
Nope - like I said, removed the code.
Simple experiment that anyone can try: disable the swap file and tell me if your computer implodes as a result. If I'm wrong you'll know pretty quickly. Answer me this, too: why so many complaints of virtual memory errors, etc.., if dynamic swap files are the way to go? Surely you've seen this, working in IT????? To answer the question, there is nothing wrong with the code, except to say that the line that frees up the handle when it goes down the FALSE code path is redundant. The system is shutting down, so why care about the memory? See, I'm considerate when I write code, and wanted to make a RL example of that idiot in the link I posted. I could leave the handle hanging - it won't matter. We're only looking at 4 kB or so of memory. He's talking of apps allocating "hundreds of megabytes they might not use", then perports to be an expert on the ways of the swap file, and worse, you seem to agree with him? Programmers care nothing more than how much memory their apps use - me included. I worry about 4 kB whilst he thinks we just arbitrarily allocate "hundreds of megabytes"?? He's on another planet entirely, and why I don't ever want to be an MVP anything. I'm already avoiding MCSE like the plague. You aren't helping by actually agreeing with his obviously uninformed comments, whilst he is using his MVP status to say that everything he is saying must be correct. Worse, you actually seem to agree with him, but based on what? You can't beat studying a system to determine how it really works. Read all the text books you like. RW Example: The Airbus FWC (Fault Warning Computer) calls "RETARD" passing 20 ft RA on landing. It's the only time it calls it out (or is it..?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onk-JuXCGsM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNk-JuXCGsM They don't mention that anywhere in the manuals.  The real thing does it too...My point is that the way a system ACTUALLY works is not always what the designers TELL YOU. Windows is hardly the best piece of software ever written anyway. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 9:51pm
Nobody said anything about it imploding. You yourself said what happens when it runs out of memory. You purposely did that but the end result is the same - it can run out of memory and you lose stuff.
Simple experiment anyone can try: disable the page file (correct name) and tell me if you notice any performance improvement. No? So why bother. Now load up Photoshop and edit some large raw files with plenty of undos, layers etc. or open up Premiere and do some video editing but don't yet save any of your work and now see what happens. Now imagine all those things you were doing had taken some hours of work and now the system is sitting there hung or has crashed and you've lost it because you thought that you were better at managing system memory than the OS. (Actually, think PS uses it's own memory manager anyway and uses scratch disks so may be okay, but the example stands, just subsitute your favourite large memory hog app').
Never seen any complaints of virtual memory errors. Actually, the only problems with virtual memory I've come across is where someone has disabled their page file or fixed it at a small size resulting in the same thing, oom errors.
I doubt very much that the systems or code you've written are the dogs danglies neither but I'm sure if some guy comes to you and says that he's just turned off a big chunk of stuff that your code uses to make informed decisions on optimal performance because he thinks he knows better then you'd laugh at him as well...
Some similar opinions to you and their corrective, better informed replies on the matter...
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/786007845931 - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/786007845931
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/748009443931 - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/748009443931
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/925003762931 - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/925003762931
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/779001867931 - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/779001867931 http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/12009443/m/786007845931/p/1?f=12009443&a=tpc&m=786007845931&s=50009562&p=1 -
Yep, all from the same place but I don't want to waste any more time looking around for the correct facts. You may disagree with them, if so join up there and post your opposite views... Go on, I'd love to see it...
Best regards,
MM
|
Posted By: In Kontrol
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2009 at 11:15pm
|
(ignores the huge techno geek war between them two)
------------- Welcome to whinging Britain... |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 12:08am
"There can be only one"... |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 3:44am
|
I see a lot of arguments without any facts to back them up. Try this then (if you're brave enough): start MS Word (or FS if you want), then move the FS9.EXE executable someplace else. Tell me if Windows ever moans it disappeared whilst the app is running. It won't. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 3:51am
|
Here, let me show you. Unlike all the endless arguments in that other forum, I show facts. Nothing else. I haven't edited this screenshot. I'll make a video if you so insist, but you'll have to wait. BTW, my swap file is disabled.  Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:00am
|
Task Manager. As you can see, the PF is disabled. The 2533 Mb is the physical memory. That is all the BIOS will allocate to 32-bit OS. You'll note I'm still running FS whilst doing all this. Note carefully the run time of "System Idle Process". If no swap file was really that bad, it would have screwed up by now. If none of my REAL TESTS aren't enough to convince you that there is NO problem, oh well. Your loss.  Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:14am
|
Just for you, I filled up the RAM. Note FS is also running. The system is running just fine, as I got the screenshot, etc...  Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:28am
|
As they say, talk is cheap. I'm known for actually delivering. PHYSICAL MEMORY AVAILABLE: 14,228 kB. She's still running. If this was Vista, I'd have to really try hard to crash it. I'm getting extremely close here. Still, I'm typing away...If I do crash it, I'll post a photo. I won't be able to get a screen capture.  Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:37am
|
Well, I ran it out of memory. GIMP crashed first, saving the rest of the system. I'm going to reboot just to be sure though. Here it is. It took iTunes to push it over the edge. I'm going to call this the Great Windows XP Stress Test.  The system is still running BTW. FS is still happily flying along, too. If this isn't enough to convince you that the people in those other forums/web sites are talking rubbish, there is no hope. For anyone else following along, I hope this was interesting.  Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:49am
|
I'm outta here! Night! Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 10:29am
| Do you ever sleep? |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 12:38pm
|
Okay, they, like me, are all wrong, and the mighty Vulcan is right... not. Your tests are all testament to your faith and to be respected, just as your 'proofs' posted in the past as to your conspiracy theories and global warming stuff - unfortunately doesn't change the fact that you are still wrong on this like you are on the other topics.
Your tests show you opening up lots and lots of backed store, i.e. stuff that exists on the drive anyway. The page file is not used for any of that, it has no need, it's already backed on the disk in physical files. You turning off the page file really has no different affect for such an example since having the page file enabled wouldn't help in such a situation anyway, none of that stuff that is already on the drive will be moved out to the page file when the memory is needed for something else anyway, it'll just be dropped and reloaded from the files. All you've proved is what the page file isn't used for.
Open up a large image file (in something other than PS just to make sure), do lots and lots of edits to it (i.e. creating undos), do as much as you can to it without saving the file. Now see how far you can go with and without a page file. You are just forcing Windows to make memory management decisions with its hands tied ultimately leading to a poorer performing system than if it had the page file available to use.
Ultimately, it still comes down to the fact that you gain essentially nothing by removing the page file and only open yourself up to loss of unbacked store. So why bother removing it in the first place...?
If your conviction is so strong, sign up to that forum and post your conclusive proof that they are all wrong and only you are right, go on, please...
|
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 1:08pm
|
I think we should vote on who's right.
My vote goes to Magic Man...
Because he is usually right, why we call him the technodude, and more importantly because he mentioned Pointy's global warming anti-logic.
 |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 1:33pm
|
Looked back and noted this little gem...
I'm at work so can't say how big the FS9.exe is for certain, doubt it's that large. I'm running Word 2007 here, the .exe is 340KB. Do you think that is the entire program, really? - bit of a cheek putting it on a DVD when it could really fit on a floppy...?
It's nothing but a stub. Notice all the (many) .dlls in the office directory? Moving, or renaming (or deleting if you want) the winword.exe will do effectively nothing once Word it running because it's already loaded and it's no longer looking at it, all the stuff when you go through the various functions and tools is loaded in from the various .dll and other files. You'd have to fill the memory to the point the Windows decides to drop pages from winword.exe (because it knows it can do so without issue because it's backed and can be loaded back from the file) before you saw any issue and a potential crash.
Just as applicable to FS9 I don't doubt.
@Martin, cheque is in the post...
 |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 1:45pm
|
You don't understand any of this do you? Did you not get the point when I *DELETED* the FS9.EXE file with FS running? FS9.EXE was no longer "backed by a file on the HD" as you put it. Based on what you're saying, the system should have failed because when it killed FS9.EXE in memory to load other stuff (based on your description of how it works), oops - FS9.EXE wasn't on the HD to look at. The memory manager does not care for the source of data in memory. It doesn't even know where it came from!!!! Keep believing the rubbish your spouting. I'm not contributing to this thread any further. Read your own comment very carefully:
Do you know what this actually means? The system NEVER drops pages of actively running applications. That would be like removing a memory module whilst the system is running and expecting it to continue to function.
Finally - enough rope to hang yourself. Totally incorrect! If this is how it worked, the page file wouldn't need to exist, because (as you say) it is already "backed" by winword.exe on the hard disk (excluding the spontaneously created user data you keep pointing to). Nope! This is how it actually works: The pagefile is 100% totally and utterly invisible to any application on the system. If I wanted to address the page file, I couldn't. Impossible. Here's the flow of the memory manager: You start an app. Like it or not, it is loaded into physical memory. The program starts executing. Whether it relies on DLLs or not, the main .EXE must remain in memory, and still operate. All a DLL is, is a way of loading/unloading code at runtime in order to reduce the memory usage to the minimum practical. You could write an app into a single .EXE but this would be huge and unweildly and a gross waste of resources. Now, assume I load another app that requires more memory than is available. With a swap file in existance, the following occurs: First, Windows takes my currently running app, and copies the MEMORY it occupies, into the swap file. Next, it frees the physical memory it just copied. Now, it goes and loads the app I'm loading, and runs it. If I task switch and return to the other app, Windows has to literally swap (hence its name) the running app to disk (into the swap file), then copy my app back out into main memory then continue executing it. That is all the swap file does. Problem is, Windows is dumber than you think. Paged vs. Non-Paged memory. It is very simple. All Kernel memory is NON-PAGED. All that means is when it is allocated, it is flagged that it can NEVER be written out to the faux memory called the swap file. The reason for this is it will result in system failure if it did so. The reason is because if it was paged out, and a call was made to the memory location, oh dear - we swapped it out (remember - apps can not see the page file at all). Instant system failure. Why? Simple - the Kernel memory isn't managed by the virtual memory manger (vmm386). This little app keeps a record of what went to the hard disk and what didn't. Now, user apps (the stuff we use every day) mainly use paged memory. Nothing special about it, only it is flagged as being pageable. If there is something I don't want to be written to the swap file for security purposes for example, I will allocate a block of non-paged memory using Win32 API calls and write my data to/from that memory. When Windows wants to shift some data out to the swap file, it shoots from the hip however. Your not-so-intelligent memory manager picks a block of memory that is a bit bigger than it requires (remmbering that it can only allocate memory AT THE TIME IT IS REQUESTED - it isn't a mind reader, and does NOT allocate ALL the memory an app might require before hand!!!!). If the app during load, or during use, then requests more memory, again, it looks at the memory map, looks for a block of memory, swaps it out then allocates it to the newly loaded app. It is as dumb as that. It does not give a stuff where the data came from (CD, Memory Stick, HD) or whether any data in memory is "backed by disk". IT DOES NOT KNOW, IT DOES NOT CARE. Get a clue dammit!!!! Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 3:47pm
|
I never knew that me mentioning the fact a slower HDD would result in a performance loss would cause a riot.
Vulcan, incase your still interested, 7 RC and Vista SP2 give out the same FPS, with Vista SP2 being a little higher in some places. I'll put that down to the slower HDD on 7 RC. Smoothness wise 7 RC was completely smooth, no sharp flickers.
Although in 7 RC, I've noticed a few black squares [which load after a couple of seconds] on the ground texture. So I put that down to the slower HDD aswell.
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 3:57pm
Exactly - the slow hard disk only results in slower texture loads. As you found, the actual sim runs the same. Which graphics card do you have, and which drivers are you running? Sorry if I missed this already. Thanks for proving my point. Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a look later at getting 7 up and running. Probably won't be for another week. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 3:57pm
No, obviously not, neither do all those top end guys either. We are all wrong and Vulcan alone is right...
Yes I did get your point, you didn't read or get mine. As said FS9.exe is not FS9 just as winword.exe is not Word 2007. The system didn't fail the moment you deleted FS9.exe because it had FS9.exe in RAM and obviously didn't get to the point were it needed to release any part of FS9.exe or if it did it didn't get at least to the part where it needed to page back in part of FS9.exe from the file. Irrespective, what is your point here in relation to the page file? Because it didn't crash you somehow don't need a page file...?
Good because you are just digging a deeper hole for your own recycled waste.
Define actively running applications? What if I tab to something else, what about that video encoding in the background whilst Word is just sitting there with an empty document - it never gets paged out I assume? So every application loaded, all the OS stuff loaded, it never gets dropped to free RAM when the system requests free space? Really? How does anyone ever manage to load or do anything more in total than the amount of physical RAM they have...? That is what paging is for and, in the case of unbacked pages and user data, what the page file is for.
Except in your igorance you are assuming the page file is used for stuff that is already backed. It is not, there is no need since backed stuff already exists as the .exe's, .dll's and all the other files on the disk.
NO IT DOESN'T....
And you've just looped that rope around your own neck since you've only just said "The system NEVER drops pages of actively running applications."
If it did do that where does that leave you with your insistence that you don't need a 'swap' file (please use the correct name, it is a page file)...?
The page file is used for unbacked store, that is pages that have changed since they were loaded from file, stuff that you have created and haven't saved yet etc. etc. If the memory manager decides that the best course of action is to drop pages from application code it simply drops them, it doesn't write them anywhere since it has no need, they already exist as files anyway and can be reloaded when required from there.
Wrong name, wrong preconecption. Just wrong all around basically...
It's memory manager could run rings around you...
[more fluff]
Post your 'truth' in that forum, I beg you, please... I could just link from there to this thread but that would be cruel...
Please matey, read those threads and learn what a page file is for and why removing it is a daft idea. There are plenty of simple and short replies there that I could block quote here but I neither have the time nor patience to do so. I urge everyone who's vaguely followed this to just glance over those threads and you'll see the exact same misconceptions posted by pointy echoed there and the corrected and informed replies from the experts.
|
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:02pm
Ummm, it didn't.
It proved that the slower hard disk did have an effect on the overall performance of the sim. It manifested itself as slower loading scenery files but since the I/O stuff has been handed over to the mutli-core stuff, it doesn't impact on the the sim running in this case. Extrapolate the drive running even slower, on a single core system and those few black blocks turn into jerky scenery.Geez, you are amazing...
|
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:22pm
|
Vulcan, here's the specs:
The drivers are V9.5.
(ATI of course
)Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:38pm
|
and the corrected and informed replies from the experts.
You know, I've told him time and time again to listen to the experts, but does he listen?
I had a look at your links anyway magic but it was too scary.
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 4:48pm
WHY? Why is it daft? Please cite technical reasons, not just "they said so".
It will not not page out the bit that is in use. See the part where I mentioned IDLE? To answer your question about running multiple apps - Assume you have 512 Mb of RAM with a 4 Gb swap file (call it what you like) Windows will (and does) spend its time swapping stuff in and out as it is needed, CONTINUOUSLY. My example was simplified for clarity. If it needs to get something out of swap to use it, and it must throw something back there to make room ofr it, it will, but the second it needs that other piece of data... you get the idea.
"If it did do that" - you mean, if Windows did NOT drop pages whilst an app was running? Has nothing to do with the swap file. Stick to the topic.
Again, you fail to see the point, and again show your ignorance. Running multiple apps on a single processor is a different branch of computing entirely. Do you even know what it takes to multi-task? This has NOTHING to do with dumping the contents of physical memory into a swap file.
Is that the best you can do? Swap file/Page file/whatever. It's just a name. I asked at the top of this post - I'll ask it again:
WHY? I have explained the technicalities of how the memory manager works (no-one in that other forum did so - they simply got confrontational and didn't produce any facts to back anything they said - typical manouvers by those with no understanding, much like you're doing by stone-walling with unrelated topics and picking at my use of the term "swap file"), and I have also demonstrated that there is absolutely no problem with disabling it, either. Instead of picking at what I refer to the swap file as, how about trying to show me FACTS to counter anything I've said? You will not be able to though, as what I'm saying is correct. Cite Microsoft Technical Articles, not some forum. Good luck - you'll need it. Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 5:28pm
I have already said. Doing so means that Windows cannot page out unbacked stuff when it deems that is the best thing to do, you force its hand, therefore it has to retain it in RAM at the expense of something else that it can page out. I.e. stuff that is backed, i.e. code that it may need frequently and that is best left in RAM. That potentially hurts performance.
That is the technical reason and no a "they said so". If that is what they say then it is because it is fact. Deal with it.
Yes, the memory manager will swap stuff out as it sees fit in order to retain optimal (according to its algorithms) resources for running stuff and disk cache.
BECAUSE WINDOWS CAN MANAGE ITS MEMORY BETTER THAN YOU CAN AND IT CAN DO SO BETTER WITH THE PAGE FILE ENABLED THAN DISABLED
I bet you were an annoying child as well...
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 6:00pm
It has no performance penalty. Why? Simple. If it isn't having to wait for stuff to move between the swap file and memory, and it can instead just get on and run, surely that is a performance increase, no? After all, disk access takes time, it takes CPU time to process the move... the list goes on - meanwhile it is waiting for the data it wants. DIsabnling the swap file cuts alllllll that out. The worst that can happen is that you run out of memory sooner (solved by adding more).
Oh - so you take anything at face value? You don't verify or question? I'm inviting you to publicly shoot me down. So far, you've failed miserably.
That isn't a valid reason.
Please cite an MS Technical Article that proves me wrong. I invite it. Educate me.
When you statred talking about multi-tasking processors, you went off at a tangent.
More diversionary tactics. My FSX problems had nothing to do with anything we are discussing here. If you recall, I wrote back that Water 2.x High effects were the SOLE CAUSE of my poor performance. I now get excellent performance. Have oyu not seen my screenshots recently of the Catalina? Check them out. I wouldn't have bought the Catalina if I was still unhappy with FSX performance. I love the aircraft (both the sim and real-life versions), and want a smooth sim to fly it in. I have both, and I'm very pleased with it. 45+ FPS on the ground is not poor performance, by any standard.
I still don't see any facts from you. Again, please stop diverting the discussion, and PROVE ME WRONG! Sorry for the larger text - this rich text editor is buggy. Vulcan. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 8:39pm
|
Jeez are there no mods about with an itchy delete finger
Sure not using a page file/swap file/virtual memory/swap partition may be fine if you know that you have enough memory to run the applications you're going to run, but to be honest I see no point in disabling the page file, I trust the operating system to make the best judgement on things that I can't control (can you accurately tell exactly how much memory all of your application will use at any given time?). |
Posted By: Matt N
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 8:47pm
|
Looks like someones going to be in need of a new keyboard by the end of this thread.
Matt. ------------- Originally Posted by MartinW I use mine for spare knickers when I'm traveling. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 10:04pm
|
Nh - 'ts ne. Bst rgards, Vlan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2009 at 10:05pm
Vulcan, it does have a potential performance penalty because you are taking away an option to manage memory and forcing Windows and its memory manager to make decisions on how to manage the memory in a restricted way. There is nothing difficult to understand here, in fact, it's common sense.
The memory manager tries its best, using algorithms, to keep resources available to you. You have a limited amount of RAM. Into that RAM you load program code and into that RAM you make changes in whatever you are doing. Additionally there are certain Windows code pages and certain pages from whatever applications you are running that are best left cached in that RAM.
The memory manager can page out stuff that it deems that you are no longer using or haven't been used in some time. Backed stuff, i.e. code, application stuff etc. that exists as files on your drive can simply be dropped when the mm decides it is advantageous to do so because, being backed, the mm can load it back from those files when required. Obviously, the best thing would be for everything you are using to be in RAM with no need for anything to be paged out but unless you have gobs of RAM, that is not going to happen. The page file itself is used by the mm to page out those memory pages that have changed but are not existent anywhere other than in RAM, that includes any user altered files, work you are doing etc. that hasn't been saved. If it's changed and doesn't exists on disk then the mm can use the page file for temporary storage.
Again, all straightforward and quite logical as I'm sure everyone else here will agree.
By removing that page file you are now forcing the mm to make restricted decisions on what it can do whenever there is a call for more allocated memory space. Now, rather than being able to page out those changes to that large image file you've been making it has no choice but to keep all of that in RAM since it can't do anything else with it. As a consequence program code that really should be cached for better performance has to be sacrificed instead since it is backed and so it is paged out (note, paged out does not mean copied to the page file).
Therefore I really can't see why you can in any way not see that there is a potential for a performance penalty. Surely, this seems quite logical to everyone doesn't it and really quite straightforward?
Ultimately, unless you have large amounts of RAM and always restrain yourself from going anywhere near memory limits then there is always the potential for performance hits caused by unneccesary paging out of commonly used program and OS code because the memory manager has no choice because it no longer has the use of the page file. As the friendly meerkat would say, Simples...
What stuff will it now not have to be waiting for to move between the 'swap' file and memory without a page file that it would with? The page file gives it more choice on how to manage the memory, not less. Yes, disk access does take time which is why you want the memory manager to minimise it by best optimisation of the memory. It can do this as well as it can and better than you second guessing it by being allowed access to the page file.
You have a limited amount of memory, how can you possibly think that cutting off a source of potential storage (granted, a lot slower storage, but storage at least than allows the mm to juggle things around better) can possibly be better than leaving it use it as it sees fit?
Yep, you can run out of memory in the middle of a piece of work, potentially loosing all that you have done whereas if you had the page file in place you wouldn't. Again, why is that a disadvantage...? Solved by adding more memory? Not a feasible solution in most cases and ultimately a waste of time and money since you have a technology available to you, built into the operating system, a core feature of the code that is designed to prevent that very problem, so why not use it.
I do some graphical 3d rendering in my spare time - add a few models, scenery, large textures etc. etc. and click render. That goes away and potentially requires a gob smackingly large amount of RAM. The image I produced for my son for Christmas was rendered 1:1 at 3622 x 2834, 16" x 12" (larger actually since it was for a canvas print and I wrapped it around the borders). It took several hours to calculate the lighting and ray tracing etc. Without a page file I'd have had no chance...
Isn't it? Sounds perfectly valid to me...
I posted in reply to you saying about alt-tabing between tasks and the OS having to page each out and back in in turn. I simply responded by saying that it didn't since we are not running single tasking (corrected) operating systems anymore.
Kind of ironic since you previously stated that an MVP had it wrong and didn't know his stuff when he's "MS-MVP - Windows Storage Management/File Systems" - who do you think contribute to the tech net articles...?
Tell you what. Since the Microsoft default is to set a system managed page file I think that means that MS think Windows works best with the page file enabled.
Since you are the one changing things from the norm' for reasons that you think are better and because you think work better than what Microsoft designed, how about you produce an MS Technical Article that shows that actually, running with the page file disabled is better for peformance. I invite it. Educate me.
Kind regards,
MM
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 12:03am
Did you ignore my description of the memory manager? Exactly how does it restrict its ability to manage anything? Please stop being vague and start getting technical.
Please refer to my earlier post. It tries to free up memory when required by looking for data it can move out that is the same size or slightly larger, but no more than necessary. It is as simple as this: [1024][4096][512][23][56] I want 2048 of memory [1024][2048][FREE SPACE][23][56] [SWAP=4096] My app does its thing. Without the swap? [1024][4096][512][23][56] I want 2048 of memory OUT OF MEMORY. Something does something. Who knows what as it is random.
Yes, like Kernel memory. If you understood my previous post, you would know this is called NON-PAGED MEMORY. It an't moving no matter what.
See, you made the same mistake again. IT DOES NOT DO THIS. Refer to my earlier posts.
Incredible. We're getting somewhere at last!!!! You now realize it is for cases where THE SYSTEM IS OUT OF PHYSICAL MEMORY.
Not true. It will page out all memory necessary to complete a task, up to the limit of the maximum size of the swap file (ignoring race conditions talked about earlier with respect to dynamic swap files).
Not true. If it is pageable memory, it will move it if required. Again, you fail to recognize it does NOT care what that data is. It is just a bunch of 0s and 1s occupying space it wants to use.
Huh?? This makes no sense. Specifically:
If it isn't copied to the page file, by definition the data is not paged out, but dumped. Freed. Deleted. Overwritten. Trashed. Ignored. Removed. Corrupted. Whatever. Anything but kept in a usable state for later.
See, I think you are mixing terminology, and getting confused by it. Cache is data not in use, but *might* be needed, maybe (possibly never). The whole point of cache is to move that data to faster storage. Hard disk to RAM, then RAM to L2 cache, then L2 cache to instruction/data cache. The system can cache all it wants - if I use something else, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. When you initially start using the computer, all programs start out equal. They are all on the hard disk, and none are anywhere near memory. The only time caching makes a difference is if I launch Word, write a letter, quit, and come back later (assuming I didn't restart). The next time I launch Word, it will already be in memory and it will start very quickly. FYI: you don't need a swap file for this. Yesterday I had Acrobat Reader open, FS9, GIMP, FireFox, Media Player, etc.. open. I could close of them. If I statred them up again, the system did NOT load everything fresh off the HD - they all ran straight out of memory (cache). It didn't make one access to the HD to do this.
Everything you said was correct right up the the words "because it no longer has". You have this backwards. A system with little memory and a paging file will ALWAYS be slower than a system with lots of memory and NO paging file. Tell me how a HD with a read/write speed of 80 Mb/sec will be quicker than system memory with a read/write speed of 1.6 Gb/sec??? Your understanding is flawed.
Anything that is in the swap file that it requires. If it involves disk I/O, it WILL be slower. Basic physics. 80 Mb/sec is slower than 1.6 Gb/sec. Nothing on this planet will change that.
Manage what???? What is there to manage? Space? That is what 8 Gb of memory is for. Any physical memory location takes exactly the same time to access as any other memory location.
You're making progress. How is 2.6 Gb of memory "limited" if you never use more than 1.5 Gb at any time? The same goes for most people, except graphic designers and architects for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If I have a 2 L bucket and only ever fill it with 1 L of water, there is little sense pouring 500 ml of it into a small container just in case, is there? Yet this is exactly what Windows does. You can prove it by monitoirng HD activity with the swap file enabled, vs. with it disabled. By disabling the swap file, you prevent Windows doing this. Instant increase in performance. Not only in terms of access to data in memory, but also the HD. Instead of the HD flicking between swap and loading data or a program, should the system be trying to do botyh at once, the HD can do its job of just being a store of user data and programs, thus speeding up the job further. Every time that HD head has to move from one part of the disk to the other, it takes 800 ns. Compare the same operation to memory, that takes 1 ns. No competition.
Memory is so cheap now there is no excuse NOT to do it. The swap file was designed back in the days when 16 Mb of RAM cost £100 (~£300 in todays currency). It is slower, and will NOT prevent you running out of memory!!! Just read all the FS forums on the dreaded "OOME". This is exacerbated by the use of dynamic swap files, due to the race condition I was talking about. If the swap file exists, Windows will try to use it whether it needs to or not. Just use yur favorite file monitoring program (or write your own to intercept read/writes to the paging file) and watch.
I've seen those. They're excellent.
See - now we're getting specific. You know you use an app with huge memory requirements, yet you are happy to use the swap file, a storage device some 800 times slower than main memory? In your case, you are right you can't get away without using it. 3622 x 2834 x 32 = 328,471,936 Mb of RAM (at least). Still well inside 2.6 Gb. Let's allow 500 Mb of the development environment you're using, and another 500 Mb for temporary storage (remembering that ray tracing is primarily heavily computational rather than heavily storage orientated). Allowing 256 Mb for the rest of the OS, that is 1.6 Gb or so of memory usage total. Wow - we still have 1 Gb to go.
As I wrote, he is hiding behind his MVP badge. It is his site, he wrote it. MS aren't behind anything. I didn't see any links to any articles from his site - only his comments. Note also that storage manangement is not nearly the same as understanding the ins and outs of operating system design and memory management. Storage management likely means he studied how to manange an iSCSI array from Windows Server 2008 using a GUI, not how a microprocessor manages memory - that is far beyond the scope of an MVP.
Oh dear... and I suppose the default MS security settings are the best, too? Don't ever work for HM Government!! Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 1:25am
You are just being obtuse now. It has the option of using the page file, you take that option away. You have restricted its ability to manage the memory. Simple. Don't try to mix that into anything else.
[lots of fluff again]
Yes it does. You are wrong.
The page file is used for non backed store. Period. Fact. True.
True.
No I haven't, it is quite clear what it means, you are just being obtuse again. You have turned off the page file therefore the mm no longer has that function to use to page out unbacked store, therefore it has to remain in memory, therefore backed code has to be dropped instead and then reloaded from disk later causing latency.
Define "little memory". Define "lots of memory". You have not got "lots of memory". 4GB is not lots of memory, certainly not enough to do away with a page file. 8GB is not lots. Do you have 8GB fitted?
It's not. You've turned off your page file meaning that code pages have to be loaded back in again as opposed to being available in RAM because you've compromised the job of the memory manager. You tell me how your system is now quicker than a system that has those pages still in RAM because the unbacked store can be paged out to the page file?
Your arrogance is astounding, beaten only by you amazing ability to miss the obvious (as evident in other threads beside this).
To manage UNBACKED STORE that has to remain in memory because of your idiotic decision based on "I know better mentality" to turn the page file off...
Because memory is being used for more than just the applications you are running. You are always complaining for a start on how much Vista uses (when it is meant to use as much as possible to precache stuff)
Mate, you are just spouting twaddle.
You have a built in free page file that the memory manager can use so that you don't have to buy that RAM however cheap it is so why not use it?
And is still every bit as valuable today as it was then.
Nicely simplified but not quite... Whatever, if I didn't have the page file for that unbacked store to go to then I would be limited in render sizes by what I could fit into RAM.
Vulcan knows best of course...
Do us all a favour, post on that forum.
|
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 8:59am
|
built into the operating system, a core feature of the code that is designed to prevent that very problem, so why not use it.
As a total nincompoop, with just a vague idea as to what you guys are on about, it would seem quite logical to me that MS new exactly what they were designing into their own operating systems. Would they be stupid enough to incorporate this as a 'core feature' if it was any kind of handicap? Is this another example of thinking we know better than the very designers of the OS? Is this hubris in the extreme?
Oh dear... and I suppose the default MS security settings are the best, too? If it's the settings I think you mean, they work for me, never had an issue. I’ve also never disabled the swap file and no issues thanks. I think you have issues though don't you Pointy? |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 4:47pm
How? You keep repeating this but never say how?
I'm not mixing anything into anything. You have consistently failed to say WHY it degrades performance, and HOW it restricts its ability to manage memory? Simply repeating this is not explaining. Please explain exactly how it makes the system slower or is otherwise bad? Please provide a detailed description of the exact memory management that is occuring, and how no swap file means the system is in a worse position assuming unlimited memory capacity..
Apart from poor FSX performance (long since resolved) do you hear me complaining of any? Cursing how my computer keeps crashing or running out of memory? Hmm? No. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 8:03pm
Oh please, come on. It doesn't take any knowledge of this subject to use common sense on this and I've already explained the basic principle that this is about several times already.
You have a certain amount of RAM. You can fill that RAM with data that exists on the hard drive (i.e. program code etc.) and you can fill it with data that does not exist on the hard drive (i.e. code that has been created or changed by you or the sytem). Simple enough so far?
The memory manager will try its best to do its job and give memory space when something calls for it. If there is not enough spare RAM going free then to do this is can make space by dropping something else.
It can always drop the stuff that already exists on the drive (backed store) and load it back in later when required and, with the use of a page file, it can drop the stuff that doesn't exist on the drive and load that back from the page file when it's needed again. Still simple and straightforward no...?
Now, here's the hard part. If you take that page file away then, strange and mystical as it may seem, it no longer has the option of dropping that stuff that has changed in memory but doesn't exist on the drive. It doesn't exists other than in RAM and so it is forced to keep hold of it.
The result of not giving it the page file to play with is that it can't choose between backed and unbacked code to drop, it isn't able to make an informed decision on which to drop, it has no option other than to drop backed code. That code could be parts of the application you are using or parts of the operating system cached to enable better system performance which then has to be paged back in later (at the expense of some other bit of backed code being dropped) etc. etc. That large edited file sitting in the background hasn't been touched in minutes if not more but, because you are telling the memory manager that it can't push it out to the page file then it sits there hogging the RAM it occupies.
Surely, anyone with a basic concept of the english language and the smallest amount of common sense can see that you have resticted its ability to manage the memory? You've reduced the options available to it - what can that be other than a restriction in the way it works...?
If you want to play the obtuse game and constantly quote hows and whys then there is really no point...
But that is a rediculous argument since we obviously haven't got unlimited memory capacity. Lets assume the hard drive can transfer as fast as any RAM then shall we, no need for RAM at all then let alone a page file (we'd have a temp file instead...)
Think possibly he was referring to something else...
I'm sure everyone else is bored to tears with this. Tell you what, if you want to believe you are right and I (and all those guys in the linked threads) are wrong then go ahead. Yep, you are right, I am wrong.
Oh, btw, is your 1066MHz RAM still running at rated speed even though you are only pushing 800MHz into it? The magic world of pointy eh...?
|
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 8:11pm
^ that's your mistake, how can you assume unlimited memory? A simple analogy if you will. A page file is like a carrier bag, you can put things in and take things out, without it you need to hold everything in your hands, what happens when you need to carry something else? you drop everything all over the floor 
However if you only need to carry 2 things then fine go without the carrier bag, but 9 times in 10 its easier to carry and use the bag than hold everything in your hands all the time (unless you're a mutant with 2000 arms). All operating systems use swap files, and I think the OS developers know more about page files than I do, so I'll leave mine on if you don't mind However you continue arguing if it makes you feel better, I'm off to argue about the meaning of life 
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2009 at 11:49pm
Uhhmmm.. I'm done with this conversation. Common sense? Hmm - common sense is knowing that if you walk in front of a truck doing 60 MPH, you will get killed. Common sense doesn't enter into it here. You are just plain avoiding answering my question now.
Where do you get this rubbish from???????? WHAT IS YOUR TECHNICAL SOURCE FOR THIS BAD INFORMATION????
No mistake. Re-read the question. Please don't get involved in this discussion, unless it is to add technical reason to blow my description and knowledge out the water. I can only summize that the reason MM is avoiding answering my question and has failed to produce any technical articles countering my position, either in whole or in part, means I am indeed correct in my assertions. Seeing as this thread is now playing like a broken record, I'm done. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 12:19am
|
OK - I've given you a chance to kill my arguments. Now I'm going to kill yours. You said: "Windows can manage memory better than you can", and implied that "Windows is smart" in managing memory. Read this: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/179897 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/179897
Think it is so smart now? http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/07/memory-management-understanding-pool-resources.aspx - http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/07/memory-management-understanding-pool-resources.aspx - A nice article explaining Paged and Non-Paged memory. http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/02/23/memory-management-101.aspx - http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/02/23/memory-management-101.aspx - The basics of memory management. Remember the idiot saying they NEVER RECOMMEND SETTING THE PAGE FILE SIZE TO 1.5x MEMORY SIZE?? HMMM??????? Read this and weep: http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2009/04/14/managing-the-system-managed-page-file.aspx - http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2009/04/14/managing-the-system-managed-page-file.aspx
In my case, that would be 1.5 x 2.6 Gb or 3.9 Gb. 3 x RAM is impossible - the limit is 4 Gb. What does Windows ACTUALLY do though, despite this explanation? Hmm?? Min size is set to 1536 Mb and max sizew was set to 3072 Mb. Go figure. Still think MS and the system settings know what they are doing???Like I kept saying, theory and reality are very different. http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/pages/prf-memory-management-large-system-cache-issues.aspx - http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/pages/prf-memory-management-large-system-cache-issues.aspx - How cache really works in Windows. http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/archive/2007/10/10/the-memory-shell-game.aspx - http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/archive/2007/10/10/the-memory-shell-game.aspx - A good primer on how memory mangement works in geneal in Windows. Read these two snippets:
I was only out by a factor of 10000. 8 ms seek time for a HD = 8,000,000 nano seconds. Compared to 10 nano seconds for memory access.
By disabling the page file, you eliminate disk-based memory management COMPLETELY which helps the system (unless you try and run at the limits of the physical memory installed in the system, in which case you are just ASKING for problems, as I showed you when GIMP couldn't allocate memory). Putting my money where my mouth is and dis-spelling myths at the same time, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 1:24am
Ummm... "When you run multiple programs (especially MS-DOS-based programs) on a Windows-based computer that has insufficient system memory (RAM) and contains an Intel Pentium Pro or Pentium II processor, information in memory may become unavailable or damaged"
This is an issue with P Pro and PII processors - hardly relevant, hardly current, nothing really to do with the issue of you shutting off the page file because you think you know better...
Yep, nice article. Not relevant to you disabling the page file though.
Nice again, same as above.
Yep, they do, you don't. And look up what the 'limits' are to the size of the page file (and the number of them).
Exactly. RAM is a finite resource, the mm has to balance sharing it, it tries to keep disk i/o to a minimum. Exactly. Except by disabling the page file you force it to retain unbacked pages at the expense of back pages.
By disabling the page file you disable paging of unbacked store. You have not eliminated disk based memory management. The mm will still drop backed pages and reload them as required.
Mmmm... How about really putting your money where your mouth is. Stop this back and fore and post your views on the forum links I posted. Go on, disple those myths they all have...
|
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 10:25am
"No Mistake" - assuming you have unlimited memory is a big mistake, memory is a finite resource. Also if this thread is like a broken record why the hell do you keep spouting your crap? The link's you've posted are mostly irrelevant to the page file. Even the links you've posted disagree with what you're saying |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 1:11pm
No they're not. To understand the page file you need to understand memory management in general.
OK then - quote my error, then quote the correction from those links. You obviously spotted something - let's see it.
No....... you obviously don't understand the point of me saying this, which is why you are saying it is a "mistake". When you conduct experiments, you assume a set of conditions, no? Are you not familiar with scientific method? Assuming an unlimited memory space is one condition for the experiment. Are you lot really this ignorant or are you just acting that way? As I say, if you spotted an error - quote it. I even provided links for you! Vulcan. |
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 1:32pm
|
Are you not familiar with scientific method?
Sorry Pointy I had to chuckle at that one given some of your GW comments. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 2:13pm
|
I always act that way, because I'm a twunk and argue about anything |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 4:37pm
|
Your choice! I still don't see any references to anything countering my position yet. You said at least one of the articles I linked to is counter to what I've said - please, quote which part. I'm inviting you to prove me wrong, and even provided links, but all you ever post back is "you're wrong", but never substantiate it?? Does that have anything to do with the fact you can't prove me wrong, because it would actually undermine your position? I think the phrase I'm looking for here is "I've got you on the run". Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 4:46pm
define "drop" define "backed pages" and provide links to technical descriptions that substantiate your definitions from Microsoft please. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 5:23pm
|
"drop" as in drop from ram, release from memory etc. etc. "backed pages" as said, stuff that already exists as physical files on the drive as opposed to unbacked stuff, i.e. memory pages that have changed, user changed stuff etc. that exist only in RAM (unless you have a page file)
No, irrelevant. They are just words.
Nope. The links you've provided have been mostly irrelevant to the issue here which is your insistence that running without a page file is better than with. You have yet to prove your case or provide relevant links that agree with this... Little snippet. Granted, not a tech net article nor anything more than advice but from the horses mouth at least...
Why would they say that if, actually, you get better performance by doing the opposite?
So are you saying that your whole argument that the page file is not required and better performance is gained by switching it off is based on the experimental condition that we have unlimited memory...? Really, surely you are not serious...? Your whole issue is that it is better to run without a paging file than with it, we don't have the fantastical gift of "unlimited memory space" unfortunately. None of your extensive posted links have even mildly pointed in that direction let alone prove it so rather than asking me and the others here following the advice of the designers, developers and experts who are actually responsible for the page file, its use by the memory manager and Windows as a whole, to prove why it's better to leave it there, give us your reasons why those people are wrong...
Ha, in your dreams... |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 6:00pm
OK...
OK, to ensure there is no confusion on my part: If I have a block of data from hard disk loaded into the memory address at 0x00FE457 for 10 bytes to 0x00FE461 and then the system freed the memory to load something else, instead of copying this block of memory to the swap file, it simply "forgets" it, and overwrites this 10 byte block of memory with something else, and just loads the 10 bytes it just overwrote, off the hard disk again, should it require it? Am I understanding this correctly? Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 6:42pm
|
You might be interested in this: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ece548/handouts/05vmarch.pdf - http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ece548/handouts/05vmarch.pdf Just to highlight it before you do:
A swap device (typically a disk) that holds pages not resident in physical memory (that’s why it’s referred to as backing store as well) See the difference? I've personally never seen it referenced as a "backing store", but hey-ho - like I said, it's just terminology. HOWEVER... You will note that NOWHERE in these notes does it say it drops data that *already* resides on the hard disk in the traditional sense of a program or user data. All it does (and as I said it did), is it copies physical memory locations to the hard disk. Nothing more, nothing less. You can write and argue with Prof. Philip Koopman if you like. You can find his contact details on the Carnegie Mellon University website. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: MartinW
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 7:27pm
from http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/sysdm_advancd_perform_change_vmpagefile.mspx?mfr=true -
So why would they Pointy? Or are you saying Microsoft, the very designers of the OS are idiots and you know better? Or are Microsoft conspiring against us? Sorry to be on the opposing camp, [I’m hardly qualified to be on either] but this just looks like you thinking you know better than the experts again, and in this instance the experts that actually coded the thing. It's there product, wouldn't they know better than you? Bet you don't answer. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:08pm
|
I don't see performance being cited as a reson to keep it. It just says not to disable it. The reason not to disable is because if you have 128 Mb of RAM and tried to run FS, without a page file, FS would not even start as it would run out of memory. @Marmite: see why I said it was important to discuss the page file and performance from the point of view of UNLIMITED memory??? Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:10pm
That link just proves the point you argue against - "Components that make virtual memory work... A swap device" So therefore disabling a page file means there is no swap device, ergo screwing over the functionality of virtual memory since it has nowhere to store swapped pages. Edit: You posted while I was typing, memory cannot be "unlimited", you can probably theorise that but in the end it's a physical impossibility. The more memory you have the more computers will use that available memory
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:16pm
|
You see the word VIRTUAL? Do you need a dictionary? Of course disabling the swap file will affected VIRTUAL memory. Sheesh. Virtual memory is but one small part of the overall scheme of memory management. You need to read the more general notes on memory management to understand this. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:21pm
I know that in reality it is impossible, but when discussing the benefits of disabling the swap file, by assuming unlimited memory, and the fact that the system will swap memory out ANYWAY despite having lots of spare memory (unlimited in our example) then obviously it has performance BENEFITS. At the other extreme end of the scale is a system with 16 Mb of RAM running Windows XP. The system will be positively living out of the swap file, yes???? Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:34pm
Which in turn affects physical memory.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 As I've said before, I'd rather leave paging turned on, at least it gives the OS something to fallback on if I run out of physical memory. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:37pm
Sure if you have unlimited memory in that sense then you would see an improvement since you wouldn't be writing to the slower hard drives, however you'd still run out of memory eventually
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 8:43pm
Yes, if you run out of physical memory. If you have plenty of physical memory, then disabling the swap file is not a problem. Further, it increases performance because like it or not, even if there is free physical memory (several hundred megabytes) Windows will still copy memory to the swap file!!! The result of this is if the system then tries to access memory that was swapped out, even if it is for 10 bytes, it has to make disk I/O and performance instantly suffers.
Only if you were stupid to try and run the system to the limits and beyond. Memory is so cheap there is no excuse not to add more physical RAM if you regularly run out of physical memory (swap file enabled or not). You WILL see increased performance for doing so. It is best to have more memory than you will use (hence my choice to go for 4 Gb for Vista for example - I know I won't use more than this at the current time. If I do, I'll simply buy more RAM). Some limitations: 32-bit OS can never ever address more than 4Gb of memory. Because of memory mapped I/O present in current computer systems that you or I run, this limit is further decreased (in my case, to 2.6 Gb as the rest of the upper address lines are used for addressing hardware, etc. and are unavailable for memory addressing). The page file can not exceed 4096 Mb in size, and XP x86 will never acknowledge more than 4 Gb of physical memory. Here is a question: if you have two page files, both 4096 Mb in size, will Windows use them up to the full 8 Gb available? From your link: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223 Let me clarify one important point: Virtual memory is NOT the page file. It has nothing to do with it. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 9:14pm
|
The page file size limit for 32bit Windows (with PAE enabled, which most XP are by default) is 16TB.
I'd rather leave my paging turned on, than risk BSODs and system crashes over a slight possible performance increase (not that I've seen any figures that prove such an increase exists). |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 10:53pm
|
That's stupid. You'd have to have 4096 page files to make use of that!!! Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Marmite
Date Posted: 10 Jun 2009 at 11:41pm
|
Figure came from a technet article %20http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.04.desktopfiles.aspx - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.04.desktopfiles.aspx
|
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2009 at 12:25am
|
If the memory manager decides to release memory pages occupied by code that is backed, i.e. .exe’s, .dll’s, etc., stuff that already exists on the disk, then yes it is just freed, unless the page has changed, there is no need to copy it to a page file (why would it need to, it already exists). When that page is required again it is simply paged back in, i.e. re-read from the file on disk, i.e. from the .exe, .dll etc.
Absolutely astounding logic there... “Well Mr President, the reason I pushed the big red button with ‘Do not push’ printed on it was because it didn’t say it would cause any harm...”
Winner of the grand prize in the ultimate copout competition 2009. Explanation of theory by reference to an unobtainable quantity, brilliant!
Your whole point was that you have disabled your page file because it is beneficial, not because in a hypothetical situation with unlimited memory. You haven't got unlimited memory. It's irrelevant anyway since if you did have unlimited memory then the mm would never need to page out unbacked store to the page file anyway so it wouldn't be used. Turning it off would gain nothing other than recover the small amount of drive space - and in this hypothetical world of unlimited memory then surely we have unlimited drive space as well so why bother?...
You do not have plenty of physical memory. 4GB was enormous and certainly more than plenty in most cases a few years ago, now it’s average. The more we have the more we use, you can never really have plenty...
Reducing the memory managers options does not increase performance. The page file will only be used if the memory manager needs to use it, if it needs to use it then you need a page file. Without it you are limiting its options.
And disk space is even cheaper. There is absolutely no excuse not to use a page file if you regularly run out of physical memory, buying extra RAM is a second option limited by funds and, if you are running a 32bit OS, limited by the addressable range. As said, 4GB is not that large. Go with it by all means, I have 4GB in my main box, but why then not give yourself the additional use of a page file for the mm to use if it requires it?
On a 32bit OS a single page file is ‘limited’ by that size by default. It can be made larger as Marmite noted. You can also have additional page files on distinct drives (I have one on each of my two drives). You can also have multiple page files on the same drive (different directories) with a registry edit.
It will use them as it sees fit. It will choose which to use based on I/O metrics for best performance.
Thanks for that, wasn’t in question. “Nothing to do with it” is a but extreme though, they are obviously related. |
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2009 at 2:01am
No it isn't. Not at all. Please refer back to my link to the slides from the Carnagie Mellon University website. As I demonstrated when I deleted the FS9.exe file - the file was no longer on disk for this behavior to work. If this is how it did work, deleting the FS9.exe file should have created chaos, regardless of whether the swap file existed or not. As should be clearly apparent to you by now, no reference is ever kept of which file data came from. The system doesn't know, and it doesn't care. All it does when it writes to the page file to clear some physical memory, is copy the memory location verbatim. That's it. What occurs to files on disk, it doesn't care. Again, please study the link very carefully. You have a flawed understanding. Best regards, Vulcan. |
Posted By: Magic Man
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2009 at 1:20pm
|
[pantomime audience]Oh yes it is…[/pantomime audience]
What exactly did you demonstrate and conclude from this and how is this trying to prove your case that a page file isn't needed...? Loading it and then removing the physical file is only going to cause a problem if the situation arises that the virtual memory manager decides to drop memory pages relating to FS9.exe and then tries to page them back in. Actually, since the file no longer exists I’m not sure if the pager will even permit those code pages to be released or, if a pagefile is present, whether it instead uses it for backing store of the pages moved out.
Rubbish. Unbacked pages will have no physical reference because they don’t exist on disk. Backed pages will have since their pages are paged in from the .exe, .dll file etc. It obviously knows where it came from. Or are you saying that all memory pages that are paged out go to the pagefile? If so then that is wrong and if so then where are you without a pagefile since in your world you would never be able to page anything out. You've already correctly said that paging still occurs without a page file, in your world how can it if "All it does when it writes to the page file to clear some physical memory, is copy the memory location verbatim"...?
You have a flawed understanding (sorry, left the quotes off that...)
|
Posted By: VulcanB2
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2009 at 2:14pm
The point I am making, and you don't understand, is that the system does not care if the file is on disk or not. It has no bearing on memory and whether the system will try to page it out or not. Clearly you're never going to understand this.
Huh? Read my links again. Keep reading until you understand. I'm finished here. Best regards, Vulcan. |