Virtual Memory > 4096MB

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by hemanthyaji@gmail.com, Feb 8, 2006.

  1. Guest

    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
    , Feb 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Lawton Guest

    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

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    Peter Lawton, Feb 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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. . .


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    Tony Sperling, Feb 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    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
    , Feb 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Rob Stow Guest

    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
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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
    >>

    >
    >
    Rob Stow, Feb 8, 2006
    #5
  6. 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. . .


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >
    Tony Sperling, Feb 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Hi,
    did you place the swap-file on a NON-ntfs partition ?
    regards jk
    Juergen Kluth, Feb 8, 2006
    #7
  8. 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. . .
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SGVtYW50aA==?=, Feb 8, 2006
    #8
  9. 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
    >
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SGVtYW50aA==?=, Feb 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Rick Guest

    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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Rick, Feb 8, 2006
    #10
  11. Rob Stow Guest

    Hemanth wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > Yes the swap is on a FAT 32 partition.
    > Is this the gate way of virtual memory limit?


    Yup.
    "The FAT32 file system has a maximum allowable file size of 4 GB"
    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/281220/en-us

    You'll need multiple page files if you want more than 4 GB of
    virtual memory on that partition.


    >
    > Hemanth
    >
    > "Juergen Kluth" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >> did you place the swap-file on a NON-ntfs partition ?
    >> regards jk
    >>
    >>
    >>
    Rob Stow, Feb 8, 2006
    #11
  12. John Barnes Guest

    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp

    Table 13.6 FAT32 Size Limits

    Description Limit
    Maximum file size 4 GB minus 1 byte (232 bytes minus 1 byte)






    "Hemanth" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    >>
    >>
    >>
    John Barnes, Feb 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Hi

    I reformatted the boot partition with NTFS on it and amazingly I could set
    swap > 4096MB! I don't have to restart the system either!

    Thanks everyone
    Thanks Tony...

    Hemanth

    "" wrote:

    > 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
    >
    >
    =?Utf-8?B?SGVtYW50aA==?=, Feb 9, 2006
    #13
  14. O.K. - We learn every day. {;o)

    Tony. . .


    "Hemanth" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi
    >
    > I reformatted the boot partition with NTFS on it and amazingly I could set
    > swap > 4096MB! I don't have to restart the system either!
    >
    > Thanks everyone
    > Thanks Tony...
    >
    > Hemanth
    >
    > "" wrote:
    >
    >> 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
    >>
    >>
    Tony Sperling, Feb 10, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gary
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,543
  2. Chuck Arthurs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    Chuck Arthurs
    Jan 26, 2004
  3. News Reader
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    652
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iIEs=?=

    Virtual PC and Virtual Server

    =?Utf-8?B?Qm9iIEs=?=, Jan 2, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    407
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jan 2, 2006
  5. jpersona
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    594
    catwalker63
    Apr 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page