Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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
     
    Guest, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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" <>
    <References: <>
    <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: <>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: crussel.static.uniserve.ca 216.113.200.27
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP14.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
    <
    <
    <
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Jul 16, 2005
    #3
  4. 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/


     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jul 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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
     
    Guest, Jul 16, 2005
    #5
  6. 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. . .


     
    Tony Sperlling, Jul 16, 2005
    #6
  7. 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==?=" <>
    <References: <>
    <>
    <>
    <Subject: Re: Virtual memory in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
    <Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 17:34:02 -0700
    <Lines: 9
    <Message-ID: <>
    <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
    <
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Jul 16, 2005
    #7
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Jul 16, 2005
    #8
  9. 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.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jul 16, 2005
    #9
  10. Bruce Sanderson, Aug 11, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.