Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Virtual Memory > 4096MB

Reply
Thread Tools

Virtual Memory > 4096MB

 
 
hemanthyaji@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Hi

I tried to increase the virtual memory greater than 4096MB in a
windows XP x64 operating system running on AMD Athlon 64. It does not
give any error as such but warns to keep the limit less than 16777216
MB barrier. It successfully accepts the swap memory to be 10GB and
asks for restart. But once I reboot, the swap memory would be taken
as 4088MB despite the virtual memory still set to 10000MB! Even the
hard disk space would not be lesser by 10000MB but by 4088MB! Why is
this happening? How do I set the swap to the size of more than 4096MB
on Windows XP x64 system?

Well, /PAE switch is built for 32bit Operating System and would be of
no use on 64bit Windows XP. If I install Windows XP Pro and try to
use the /PAE switch, it does not help either as /PAE is supported
only by Intel chip sets! [ Is this really true?]

Help is most appreciated and thanks for your time.
Hemanth

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter Lawton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
I don't know if it applies to x64 but I recall that the maximum size of a
single swap file used to be 4Gb, but you could have multiple 4Gb swap files
on different drives

Peter Lawton

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi
>
> I tried to increase the virtual memory greater than 4096MB in a
> windows XP x64 operating system running on AMD Athlon 64. It does not
> give any error as such but warns to keep the limit less than 16777216
> MB barrier. It successfully accepts the swap memory to be 10GB and
> asks for restart. But once I reboot, the swap memory would be taken
> as 4088MB despite the virtual memory still set to 10000MB! Even the
> hard disk space would not be lesser by 10000MB but by 4088MB! Why is
> this happening? How do I set the swap to the size of more than 4096MB
> on Windows XP x64 system?
>
> Well, /PAE switch is built for 32bit Operating System and would be of
> no use on 64bit Windows XP. If I install Windows XP Pro and try to
> use the /PAE switch, it does not help either as /PAE is supported
> only by Intel chip sets! [ Is this really true?]
>
> Help is most appreciated and thanks for your time.
> Hemanth
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
I'm affraid I won't be able to be of much help but by your figures, I
expect - if you are having any performance issues - that you have 4GB of RAM
and are running more than 4 hungry processes in the background, that you
rely upon.

First, I assume Windows is relying on some mathematical formula to manage
the swap space. I also assume that Microsoft has done extensive research, to
find a formula that won't create disturbances for anybody.

You probably know that the system isn't swapping any data - only code, so
only a fraction of your memory space will ever be required to be swapped. If
you still need more swap space the only option I can think of is to create
one file in every available partition to the booted system partition, I
don't even know if that will work, but I have an idea that it might. Some
believe that swap space created on the partition where an app is installed
will benefit that app's performance when swapping. I have not been able to
verify this, but I also don't ever run anything that will exhaust a normal
swapfile.

One thing I can definitly say is improving swap efficiency though, is
creating a swap file that is never allowed to re-size. That is to say, one
where the Min - Max size is set the same. Re-sizing swapfiles is almost as
bad as doing a disk defrag.

The Virtual Memory, really is the swap file + your installed RAM, and
Windows is actually rather good at managing this, that is, if you don't have
specific requirements, and as long as you don't allow it to re-size. Also,
you should put the swap file on the fastest disk you have.


Tony. . .


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi
>
> I tried to increase the virtual memory greater than 4096MB in a
> windows XP x64 operating system running on AMD Athlon 64. It does not
> give any error as such but warns to keep the limit less than 16777216
> MB barrier. It successfully accepts the swap memory to be 10GB and
> asks for restart. But once I reboot, the swap memory would be taken
> as 4088MB despite the virtual memory still set to 10000MB! Even the
> hard disk space would not be lesser by 10000MB but by 4088MB! Why is
> this happening? How do I set the swap to the size of more than 4096MB
> on Windows XP x64 system?
>
> Well, /PAE switch is built for 32bit Operating System and would be of
> no use on 64bit Windows XP. If I install Windows XP Pro and try to
> use the /PAE switch, it does not help either as /PAE is supported
> only by Intel chip sets! [ Is this really true?]
>
> Help is most appreciated and thanks for your time.
> Hemanth
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
hemanthyaji@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Hi Tony,

Thanks for your reply. I asked this question to Mitch Tulloch (who is a
consultant, trainer, and author based in Winnipeg, Canada. He has
written over a dozen books including the Microsoft Encyclopedia of
Networking (2nd edition, Microsoft Press, 2002) and the Microsoft
Encyclopedia of Security (Microsoft Press, 2003). Mitch frequently
writes on topics like Windows optimization and troubleshooting, network
troubleshooting, and security and is a Microsoft Most Valuable
Professional (MVP) in the area of Windows Server Setup/Deployment. )

This is his reply...
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ****
That's strange, I don't know why that's happening. The max paged pool
for x64 XP should be 128 GB so I don't see why this should occur.
Suggest you post your question to the microsoft
public.windows.x64.general newsgroup at
http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/ or news://msnews.microsoft.com
and see if someone has an answer...
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
MVP - Windows Server
=======================================
website: http://www.mtit.com
my blog: http://itreader.net
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******

I really need to have more than 4GB of virtual memory (minus h/w RAM)
as a SINGLE file on Windows XP x64. That's why it is built for! But HOW
DO I DO THAT?

Help is most appreciated
Hemanth

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rob Stow
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Peter Lawton wrote:
> I don't know if it applies to x64 but I recall that the maximum size of a
> single swap file used to be 4Gb, but you could have multiple 4Gb swap files
> on different drives


I'm sure you meant to say 4 GB, not a mere 4 Gb

With W2K and XP-32 a page file can be no larger than 4 GB, but
you can have multiple 4 GB page files. If you want several page
files, it is easiest to set them up on separate "drives", but
having several on one partition is possible, as is explained in
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/237740/en-us

For XP-64 there does not seem to be a corresponding KB article.

For the OP: setting a page file max to some very large value
won't immediately cause a new page file of that size - it is
setting the minimum value that is the key.

In any case, you should set the min and max sizes to the same
value to avoid page file fragmentation. Few things have as bad
an impact on drive performance as a badly fragmented page file.

>
> Peter Lawton
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>> Hi
>>
>> I tried to increase the virtual memory greater than 4096MB in a
>> windows XP x64 operating system running on AMD Athlon 64. It does not
>> give any error as such but warns to keep the limit less than 16777216
>> MB barrier. It successfully accepts the swap memory to be 10GB and
>> asks for restart. But once I reboot, the swap memory would be taken
>> as 4088MB despite the virtual memory still set to 10000MB! Even the
>> hard disk space would not be lesser by 10000MB but by 4088MB! Why is
>> this happening? How do I set the swap to the size of more than 4096MB
>> on Windows XP x64 system?
>>
>> Well, /PAE switch is built for 32bit Operating System and would be of
>> no use on 64bit Windows XP. If I install Windows XP Pro and try to
>> use the /PAE switch, it does not help either as /PAE is supported
>> only by Intel chip sets! [ Is this really true?]
>>
>> Help is most appreciated and thanks for your time.
>> Hemanth
>>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Ouch, I just bumped my head into the technology wall there. Fortunately,
there are some extremely smart people gathered here, they will see this if
you hang in there for a while. But this is an unusual problem. For the
benefit of those others - and my own curiosity - without revealing any
secrets, what kind of processing will require this? This mass of swapping,
if you are involved in the development of something like that, wouldn't it
be much more efficient to just have the system flush it as necessary and
reload the stuff again from disk. I wonder if you would see any significant
degradation of performance? As opposed to working in such a huge space,
which seem to defeat the idea of the sollution.

The only background for inventing the Virtual Memory technology, is to have
some space, the location of which is known in advance, in order to have
quicker access to code that was dumped by the system when it became short on
Physical Memory. At some point the threshold of the overhead of all this
must become higher than the benefit and when the system hits this
obstruction it is designed to flush anything that it isn't currently working
on, and reload it as needed.

Ah, but that's probably just me being stupid - of course there has to be
someone out there with unforseable requirements. I would not like to enter
an argument with someone as Mich, but the 128GB sounds more like the
Physical Memory that is supported, and the Virtual Memory is only a slice of
the combined RAM + HD resources.

The only other interface to the mechanism I can think of would be the
Registry, if there is a key that sets the maximum size of that slice.


Tony. . .


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> Hi Tony,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I asked this question to Mitch Tulloch (who is a
> consultant, trainer, and author based in Winnipeg, Canada. He has
> written over a dozen books including the Microsoft Encyclopedia of
> Networking (2nd edition, Microsoft Press, 2002) and the Microsoft
> Encyclopedia of Security (Microsoft Press, 2003). Mitch frequently
> writes on topics like Windows optimization and troubleshooting, network
> troubleshooting, and security and is a Microsoft Most Valuable
> Professional (MVP) in the area of Windows Server Setup/Deployment. )
>
> This is his reply...
> ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ****
> That's strange, I don't know why that's happening. The max paged pool
> for x64 XP should be 128 GB so I don't see why this should occur.
> Suggest you post your question to the microsoft
> public.windows.x64.general newsgroup at
> http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/ or news://msnews.microsoft.com
> and see if someone has an answer...
> Cheers,
> Mitch Tulloch
> MVP - Windows Server
> =======================================
> website: http://www.mtit.com
> my blog: http://itreader.net
> ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******
>
> I really need to have more than 4GB of virtual memory (minus h/w RAM)
> as a SINGLE file on Windows XP x64. That's why it is built for! But HOW
> DO I DO THAT?
>
> Help is most appreciated
> Hemanth
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Juergen Kluth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Hi,
did you place the swap-file on a NON-ntfs partition ?
regards jk


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?SGVtYW50aA==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Dear Tony

I could do that in only one way but having two seperate swap files by
changing a registry key as in
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=237740
but I don't want that! I have to know how a SINGLE swap >4GB could be
created on Windows XP x64.
Otherway of handling the data is to flush the data to and from the hard disk
and the swap or by repartitioning of the the data array before being stored
onto the swap. But for the kind of array that I am operating on, the system
would take atleast a week to process that!
There are so many extremely smart people reading this section, why is not
any one revealing some thing? Who is this operating system and the technology
of 64bit really built for?
Tony as you have said there must be some thing to be set in either the
'registry' or the 'boot.ini' to enable 64 bit addressing virtually to the
hard disk.

Hope some one would really want to help us!

Hemanth

"Tony Sperling" wrote:

> Ouch, I just bumped my head into the technology wall there. Fortunately,
> there are some extremely smart people gathered here, they will see this if
> you hang in there for a while. But this is an unusual problem. For the
> benefit of those others - and my own curiosity - without revealing any
> secrets, what kind of processing will require this? This mass of swapping,
> if you are involved in the development of something like that, wouldn't it
> be much more efficient to just have the system flush it as necessary and
> reload the stuff again from disk. I wonder if you would see any significant
> degradation of performance? As opposed to working in such a huge space,
> which seem to defeat the idea of the sollution.
>
> The only background for inventing the Virtual Memory technology, is to have
> some space, the location of which is known in advance, in order to have
> quicker access to code that was dumped by the system when it became short on
> Physical Memory. At some point the threshold of the overhead of all this
> must become higher than the benefit and when the system hits this
> obstruction it is designed to flush anything that it isn't currently working
> on, and reload it as needed.
>
> Ah, but that's probably just me being stupid - of course there has to be
> someone out there with unforseable requirements. I would not like to enter
> an argument with someone as Mich, but the 128GB sounds more like the
> Physical Memory that is supported, and the Virtual Memory is only a slice of
> the combined RAM + HD resources.
>
> The only other interface to the mechanism I can think of would be the
> Registry, if there is a key that sets the maximum size of that slice.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> > Hi Tony,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. I asked this question to Mitch Tulloch (who is a
> > consultant, trainer, and author based in Winnipeg, Canada. He has
> > written over a dozen books including the Microsoft Encyclopedia of
> > Networking (2nd edition, Microsoft Press, 2002) and the Microsoft
> > Encyclopedia of Security (Microsoft Press, 2003). Mitch frequently
> > writes on topics like Windows optimization and troubleshooting, network
> > troubleshooting, and security and is a Microsoft Most Valuable
> > Professional (MVP) in the area of Windows Server Setup/Deployment. )
> >
> > This is his reply...
> > ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ****
> > That's strange, I don't know why that's happening. The max paged pool
> > for x64 XP should be 128 GB so I don't see why this should occur.
> > Suggest you post your question to the microsoft
> > public.windows.x64.general newsgroup at
> > http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/ or news://msnews.microsoft.com
> > and see if someone has an answer...
> > Cheers,
> > Mitch Tulloch
> > MVP - Windows Server
> > =======================================
> > website: http://www.mtit.com
> > my blog: http://itreader.net
> > ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ******
> >
> > I really need to have more than 4GB of virtual memory (minus h/w RAM)
> > as a SINGLE file on Windows XP x64. That's why it is built for! But HOW
> > DO I DO THAT?
> >
> > Help is most appreciated
> > Hemanth
> >

>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?SGVtYW50aA==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
Hi

Yes the swap is on a FAT 32 partition.
Is this the gate way of virtual memory limit?

Hemanth

"Juergen Kluth" wrote:

> Hi,
> did you place the swap-file on a NON-ntfs partition ?
> regards jk
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-08-2006
No. The preferred file system is NTFS. It's much more efficient than
FAT32.

Hemanth wrote:
> Hi
>
> Yes the swap is on a FAT 32 partition.
> Is this the gate way of virtual memory limit?
>
> Hemanth
>
> "Juergen Kluth" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> did you place the swap-file on a NON-ntfs partition ?
>> regards jk
>>
>>
>>

 
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
Using virtual memory and/or disk to save reduce memory footprint nick C++ 58 03-16-2009 01:08 PM
V1.1 Virtual Folder when V2.0 installed for the virtual server? Jéjé ASP .Net 2 11-30-2005 05:44 PM
virtual template and virtual access for ADSL circuits Gary Cisco 1 04-28-2005 07:26 PM
Differences between Sony Memory Stick & memory Stick Pro vs Memory Stick Duo? zxcvar Digital Photography 3 11-28-2004 10:48 PM
Virtual Computer Corporation (VCC) Virtual Workbench VW300 Derek Simmons VHDL 0 08-01-2004 04:55 AM



Advertisments