Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Reply
Thread Tools

Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
Greetings,

It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to configure and
optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 edition, or links to
where it's described.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of RAM
and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the ratio is
calculated?

Thanks in advance
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
I haven't seen any docs on it, but the overall rules are no different than
they've ever been. The actual virtual memory address space available to
applications is 8TB, by the way. The other 8TB is reserved for the OS.

The basic rules are that you should allocate swap _at least equivalent_ to
the amount of RAM. And typically twice RAM. OTOH, if you have very large data
sets, allocating additional space makes sense -- applications can access data
residing in virtual memory far faster than having to load it into memory and
then work with it.


--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


Matt wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to
> configure and optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64
> edition, or links to where it's described.
>
> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB)
> of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the
> ratio is calculated?
>
> Thanks in advance



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
Hello,
I guess the question I have is how are we defining Virutal Memory in the
question?
The question is about RAM and address space numbers, two separate items.
Are we talking about the Address Space?
Or are we talking about pagefile?

889654 How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions
of
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=889654

Processor and memory capabilities of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
and of the x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
<From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)>
<References: <(E-Mail Removed)>
<Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
<Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:10:17 -0700
<Lines: 32
<X-Priority: 3
<X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
<X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
<X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
<X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
<Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
<Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
<Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP14.phx.gbl
<Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:11293
<X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<
<I haven't seen any docs on it, but the overall rules are no different than
<they've ever been. The actual virtual memory address space available to
<applications is 8TB, by the way. The other 8TB is reserved for the OS.
<
<The basic rules are that you should allocate swap _at least equivalent_ to
<the amount of RAM. And typically twice RAM. OTOH, if you have very large
data
<sets, allocating additional space makes sense -- applications can access
data
<residing in virtual memory far faster than having to load it into memory
and
<then work with it.
<
<
<--
<Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
<======================
<Charlie.
<http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
<
<
<Matt wrote:
<> Greetings,
<>
<> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to
<> configure and optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64
<> edition, or links to where it's described.
<>
<> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB)
<> of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the
<> ratio is calculated?
<>
<> Thanks in advance
<
<
<

 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-15-2005
Darrell -- Good link to 889654. That's the first time I've seen the page file
recommendations laid out so clearly. A really useful KB article. Thanks for
the pointer.

--
Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
======================
Charlie.
http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/


"Darrell Gorter[MSFT]" wrote:
> Hello,
> I guess the question I have is how are we defining Virutal Memory in
> the question?
> The question is about RAM and address space numbers, two separate
> items. Are we talking about the Address Space?
> Or are we talking about pagefile?
>
> 889654 How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit
> versions of
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=889654
>
> Processor and memory capabilities of Windows XP Professional x64
> Edition and of the x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732
>
> Thanks,
> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights --------------------
> <From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <References: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> <Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:10:17 -0700
> <Lines: 32
> <X-Priority: 3
> <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
> <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
> <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> <Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
> <NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP14.phx.gbl
> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
> microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:11293 <X-Tomcat-NG:
> microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general <
> <I haven't seen any docs on it, but the overall rules are no
> different than <they've ever been. The actual virtual memory address
> space available to <applications is 8TB, by the way. The other 8TB is
> reserved for the OS. <
> <The basic rules are that you should allocate swap _at least
> equivalent_ to <the amount of RAM. And typically twice RAM. OTOH, if
> you have very large data
> <sets, allocating additional space makes sense -- applications can
> access data
> <residing in virtual memory far faster than having to load it into
> memory and
> <then work with it.
> <
> <
> <--
> <Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
> <======================
> <Charlie.
> <http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
> <
> <
> <Matt wrote:
> <> Greetings,
> <>
> <> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to
> <> configure and optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional
> x64 <> edition, or links to where it's described.
> <>
> <> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes
> (GB) <> of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder
> how the <> ratio is calculated?
> <>
> <> Thanks in advance
> <
> <
> <



 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
Darrell,

Re: how are we defining Virutal Memory in the question?

What I was wondering about was how to configure the paging file size in
virtual memory for best performance. Many thanks for the link, I have
searched for precisely that info.

cheers
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperlling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
Oh, yes. Very good read.

Let me remind you, however, that as the pagefile requirements fall with RAM
size - the irritation potential from wasted space on-disk equally falls as
disk space rises. I first started experimenting with different settings back
in WFW 3.11 days, and I found that of far greater importance than 'size' -
was the aspect of where you put it AND coupled with NOT making it
re-sizable. Sometimes, configuring one (1) swapfile for several disks would
be the smart thing to do. Sometimes, having a swapfile on each partition to
serve the 'local' apps was smart. Generally, I found that if you had one
fast drive for data - putting the swapfile there made for a 'subjectively'
more responsive machine. But always - make it twice as large as windows
recommends and set the max. size the same as the initial - preventing it to
re-size! I had the first hint of this from someone who was benchmarking with
POVRAY - my own experiments was purely subjectiv, but largely confirmed what
I learnt.

I'm sure you've heard all this before - but these questions keep popping up.

Regards, Tony. . .


""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
> I guess the question I have is how are we defining Virutal Memory in the
> question?
> The question is about RAM and address space numbers, two separate items.
> Are we talking about the Address Space?
> Or are we talking about pagefile?
>
> 889654 How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions
> of
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=889654
>
> Processor and memory capabilities of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> and of the x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732
>
> Thanks,
> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
> --------------------
> <From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <References: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> <Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 14:10:17 -0700
> <Lines: 32
> <X-Priority: 3
> <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
> <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
> <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> <Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
> <NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP14.phx.gbl
> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:11293
> <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
> <
> <I haven't seen any docs on it, but the overall rules are no different
> than
> <they've ever been. The actual virtual memory address space available to
> <applications is 8TB, by the way. The other 8TB is reserved for the OS.
> <
> <The basic rules are that you should allocate swap _at least equivalent_
> to
> <the amount of RAM. And typically twice RAM. OTOH, if you have very large
> data
> <sets, allocating additional space makes sense -- applications can access
> data
> <residing in virtual memory far faster than having to load it into memory
> and
> <then work with it.
> <
> <
> <--
> <Please, all replies to the newsgroup.
> <======================
> <Charlie.
> <http://www.msmvps.com/xperts64/
> <
> <
> <Matt wrote:
> <> Greetings,
> <>
> <> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to
> <> configure and optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64
> <> edition, or links to where it's described.
> <>
> <> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB)
> <> of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the
> <> ratio is calculated?
> <>
> <> Thanks in advance
> <
> <
> <
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
Hello Matt,
Good, I suspected that was what you were asking but I wanted to be sure.
Do we need to add some query words to make the article easier to find?
Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
<Thread-Topic: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
<thread-index: AcWJnhBJiEvB9SXSTXiQe9iIlsdY5Q==
<X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.6.42.205
<From: "=?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=" <(E-Mail Removed)>
<References: <(E-Mail Removed)>
<(E-Mail Removed)>
<(E-Mail Removed)>
<Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
<Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:34:02 -0700
<Lines: 9
<Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
<MIME-Version: 1.0
<Content-Type: text/plain;
< charset="Utf-8"
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
<Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
<Importance: normal
<Priority: normal
<X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
<Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
<Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
<Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:11328
<X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<
<Darrell,
<
<Re: how are we defining Virutal Memory in the question?
<
<What I was wondering about was how to configure the paging file size in
<virtual memory for best performance. Many thanks for the link, I have
<searched for precisely that info.
<
<cheers
<

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
No, I could have started out searching microsoft.com for "paging file size
x64" rather than searching for "virtual memory x64". No need to add
additional query words for this purpose. Thanks.

""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote:

> Hello Matt,
> Good, I suspected that was what you were asking but I wanted to be sure.
> Do we need to add some query words to make the article easier to find?
> Thanks,
> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
> --------------------
> <Thread-Topic: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> <thread-index: AcWJnhBJiEvB9SXSTXiQe9iIlsdY5Q==
> <X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.6.42.205
> <From: "=?Utf-8?B?TWF0dA==?=" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <References: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
> <Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:34:02 -0700
> <Lines: 9
> <Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>
> <MIME-Version: 1.0
> <Content-Type: text/plain;
> < charset="Utf-8"
> <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> <X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
> <Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
> <Importance: normal
> <Priority: normal
> <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
> <NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:11328
> <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
> <
> <Darrell,
> <
> <Re: how are we defining Virutal Memory in the question?
> <
> <What I was wondering about was how to configure the paging file size in
> <virtual memory for best performance. Many thanks for the link, I have
> <searched for precisely that info.
> <
> <cheers
> <
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2005
I let Windows determine the pagefile size. I have 2GB ram and the system
set up a 2GB pagefile for all drives. Your question prompted me to look for
the first time.

I quit worrying very much about it when I started installing large amounts
of ram. I have seen suggestions in other newsgroups that with large amounts
of memory it can actually work better to have a smaller pagefile rather than
a multiple of ram.

When I did worry about the pagefile the key consideration was not so much
the size as the location. A pagefile on a separate hard disk controller
seems the best. That is a given with SATA drives, but with IDE I ensured
that the drive I used for the pagefile was on a different channel from my
system drive.

"Matt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings,
>
> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to configure
> and
> optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 edition, or links
> to
> where it's described.
>
> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of
> RAM
> and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the ratio is
> calculated?
>
> Thanks in advance



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sanderson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2005
Some of it has to do with the number of address bits implemented in the
processor chip and support chips. You may find
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/Wind...eEtc.htm#64Bit
of interest.

--
Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders

It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.



"Matt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings,
>
> It would be highly appreciated with any suggestions on how to configure
> and
> optimize virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 edition, or links
> to
> where it's described.
>
> Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of
> RAM
> and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, - making me wonder how the ratio is
> calculated?
>
> Thanks in advance



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE: Column: Exploring Windows XP Professional x64 Edition =?Utf-8?B?dGhlcGVhcnRyZWU=?= Windows 64bit 42 01-06-2006 08:05 PM
Windows Server 2003 X64 RC2 or SImply XP Professional X64 Edition =?Utf-8?B?UGFzY2Fs?= Windows 64bit 6 09-25-2005 05:33 PM
Creative - Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Driver Availability Chart Mirko Windows 64bit 4 05-24-2005 08:49 AM
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition - Triail Download -- Now Available !! Mike Brannigan [MSFT] Windows 64bit 17 05-21-2005 05:02 PM
Exploring Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Christian Hougardy \(MS MVP XP\) Windows 64bit 2 05-11-2005 05:54 AM



Advertisments