RAM Allocation

Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be “turned off.” What is meant by such wording is “set the system to use no page file space at all.” Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it — if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.

Virtual Memory in Windows XP

It seems that you two are in disagreement? Granted, it's been a while since I've done any research on this topic, but have things changed since this was written?

Fumz said:

Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be “turned off.” What is meant by such wording is “set the system to use no page file space at all.” Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it — if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.

Virtual Memory in Windows XP

It seems that you two are in disagreement? Granted, it's been a while since I've done any research on this topic, but have things changed since this was written?

Yes. Since XP processes must explicitly force physical allocation even with VirtualAlloc() calls. I like having no page file in those circumstances because I am extremely interested in any process that wants to physically allocate gigabytes of memory on my computer. I such a process to fail first just so I can investigate whether the process is some kind of malware or just written by a complete bonehead.

What apps have you found that make those kinds of outrageous calls?

Fumz said:

What apps have you found that make those kinds of outrageous calls?

There were a few "memory cleaner" type applications that did it. All were of dubious benefit with out without a page file. With the page file they slowed the system down by forcing the system to write process pages to disk only to later have to read them back. Without the page file they just forced a working set trim of running processes like what occurs when you minimize most apps or failed with an error message or crash.

Oh and some old versions of Photoshop...

Memory cleaners... tsk tsk...

prospero said:

Those last two posts were extremely informative, you learn something new every day (if you've a mind to). Thanks for your help.

What about the posts helped you? It was mostly just two experts talking shop. Was your original question answered to your satisfaction or should we still continue to work on it? Thanks for the compliment!

Fumz said:

There's no problem here. 7 says it sees and is using all 6GB's of RAM.

You do however have a few more processes running than I do. You show 75 to my 46 processes; 24k to my 14k handles; 1000 to my 600 threads... but... you're probably doing stuff.

I do have to ask though... 6GB's on an LGA 1156 motherboard? How did you arrive at that configuration and why have you sacrificed running dual channel?

Hi Fumz. I've just used Belarc Advisor to check that my updates are OK and discovered that the MOBO is a Dell 033FF6 A00. Does that make a difference? I'm happy with the system's performance and don't plan to spend another £50-60 to add more RAM at the moment.

A Guy said:

Ken, I like mine blue :)

Attachment 75975

A Guy

Where did you get that?!