way too low on memory

[Marquis Dufek]

I've got a machine running XP Pro. It's got 256K of RAM but, when I
check the system, it's only got about 64 available, even right after
booting when nothing is open.
The machine has the following apps that I've had problems with Windows
before: Adobe PageMaker, Photoshop and Quark.
Has anyone heard of this? How do I find out where the heck all that
memory is going? And, more importantly, what do I do to make all that
memory stop disappearing on me?
Thanks,
Marquis Dufek

[Len Segal]

Marquis,

Windows XP is managing your memory and it doles out (and takes back) memory
as applications call for it. Do NOT try to manage the memory manually, you
are certainly not going to be able to do it as efficiently as the OS can do
it. This is very different than it was under Win9x.

Also, with the heavy hitters you run as applications, buy yourself another
256MB of RAM if your system will handle it, as these apps will be a lot
happier with 512MB minimum than with 256MB (it isn't 256KB, you'd never be
able to load anything not even the OS on 256KB).

--

Regards,
Len Segal, MCP
Microsoft - MVP
--------------
My reply address is intentionally wrong to reduce SPAM Email.
NOTE: We do not respond to unsolicited Email support questions,
please post questions in newsgroup.

"Marquis Dufek" > wrote in message
...
> I've got a machine running XP Pro. It's got 256K of RAM but, when I
> check the system, it's only got about 64 available, even right after
> booting when nothing is open.
> The machine has the following apps that I've had problems with Windows
> before: Adobe PageMaker, Photoshop and Quark.
> Has anyone heard of this? How do I find out where the heck all that
> memory is going? And, more importantly, what do I do to make all that
> memory stop disappearing on me?
> Thanks,
> Marquis Dufek
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003

[Dan DeStefano]

does your machine's bios recognize all 256mb of memory? even though you may
have physically installed 256mb of memory, it still may not all be
recognized by your computer's bios. when your machine is posting, make sure
you see that all 256mb are recognized. if not, try rearranging the memory
modules in your machine. another possible problem can be that the memory
modules you installed are too dense for your machine's motherboard/bios to
read. if this is the case, the only thing you can do is to purchase
less-dense modules. consult your motherboard manufacturer's website for
compatibility information.

Dan DeStefano


"Marquis Dufek" > wrote in message
...
> I've got a machine running XP Pro. It's got 256K of RAM but, when I
> check the system, it's only got about 64 available, even right after
> booting when nothing is open.
> The machine has the following apps that I've had problems with Windows
> before: Adobe PageMaker, Photoshop and Quark.
> Has anyone heard of this? How do I find out where the heck all that
> memory is going? And, more importantly, what do I do to make all that
> memory stop disappearing on me?
> Thanks,
> Marquis Dufek
>

[Alex Nichol]

Marquis Dufek wrote:

>I've got a machine running XP Pro. It's got 256K of RAM but, when I
>check the system, it's only got about 64 available, even right after
>booting when nothing is open.

Windows memory management does its level best to find *some* use for
*all* of RAM, all the time, and will instantly drop trivial ones if
something else comes along. After boot it will, for lack of anything
better, be caching every file so far read. You should expect to see
very little or no 'Free' RAM at any time - 'available physical memory'
is misleading, and ought to be 'physical memory for which there is
currently no possible use'. Read up at www.aumha.org/a/xpvm.htm


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows - File Systems)
Bournemouth, U.K.

[Steve Silverwood]

In article >,
says...
> Windows XP is managing your memory and it doles out (and takes back) memory
> as applications call for it. Do NOT try to manage the memory manually, you
> are certainly not going to be able to do it as efficiently as the OS can do
> it. This is very different than it was under Win9x.

One thing I do on new systems by default is to go in and set the virtual
memory size to make the minimum size the same as the maximum size.
Doing so avoids fragmentation and performance issues caused by the
system enlarging and shrinking the file as needed. Making the minimum
the same as the maximum gives you a fixed size file, with a significant
improvement in performance.

> Also, with the heavy hitters you run as applications, buy yourself another
> 256MB of RAM if your system will handle it, as these apps will be a lot
> happier with 512MB minimum than with 256MB.

Agreed 100%. You can NEVER have too much memory.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs_steve

[Walter Clayton]

"Steve Silverwood" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Windows XP is managing your memory and it doles out (and takes back)
memory
> > as applications call for it. Do NOT try to manage the memory manually,
you
> > are certainly not going to be able to do it as efficiently as the OS can
do
> > it. This is very different than it was under Win9x.
>
> One thing I do on new systems by default is to go in and set the virtual
> memory size to make the minimum size the same as the maximum size.
> Doing so avoids fragmentation and performance issues caused by the
> system enlarging and shrinking the file as needed. Making the minimum
> the same as the maximum gives you a fixed size file, with a significant
> improvement in performance.

No it doesn't. Following that advise is how you *throttle* the system rather
than unleash it. ;-)
The upper limit on the pagefile determines when the system starts to
throttle. And since each VM on the OS is capable of addressing 4G I'll leave
the rest to your imagination.

Let the system manage the pagefile.

>
> > Also, with the heavy hitters you run as applications, buy yourself
another
> > 256MB of RAM if your system will handle it, as these apps will be a lot
> > happier with 512MB minimum than with 256MB.
>
> Agreed 100%. You can NEVER have too much memory.
>

Actual you can, but considering the current price of memory the TCO numbers
tend to get skewed a bit and the issue is more of a question of how much is
supported on the current platform.


--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp

[Steve Silverwood]

In article >, w-
says...
> "Steve Silverwood" > wrote in message
> om...
> > One thing I do on new systems by default is to go in and set the virtual
> > memory size to make the minimum size the same as the maximum size.
> > Doing so avoids fragmentation and performance issues caused by the
> > system enlarging and shrinking the file as needed. Making the minimum
> > the same as the maximum gives you a fixed size file, with a significant
> > improvement in performance.
>
> No it doesn't. Following that advise is how you *throttle* the system rather
> than unleash it. ;-)
> The upper limit on the pagefile determines when the system starts to
> throttle. And since each VM on the OS is capable of addressing 4G I'll leave
> the rest to your imagination.
>
> Let the system manage the pagefile.

OK, I don't understand something then. Why is it that every
installation of WinXP I've seen defaults to a custom page file size with
a low setting of exactly 1.5 times the amount of installed RAM and a
high setting of exactly 3 times the amount of RAM? My usual practice is
to simply make the low end the same as the high end, so that no resizing
of the page file takes place, and no performance hit due to the system
having to enlarge and reduce the size of that file.

If letting the system manage the pagefile is the recommended way to go,
why doesn't a clean install default to "System Managed Pagefile"
instead?

I'm not upset or refusing criticism, just trying to understand what's
going on. Thanks for your help.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs_steve

[Walter Clayton]

A lot of what's happening is a carry over from the days when most NT kernel
implementations were server based
(and setting a max in that environment does make a modicum of sense in order
to throttle run away tasks) and prior to some of the virtual memory
enhancements in XP. It's literally one of those things that fell through the
cracks since in most instances it's harmless.
One thing to note though is that around 1G (maybe 756M; I'd have to dig to
find out the exact point) of real, the standard minimum drops back to 1x
real.

However to address the rather popular myth that setting min = max is the way
to avoid fragmentation and maximize performance simply consider that an
adequate minimum will insure that the space isn't fragmented beyond the
initial state, nor will additional space be allocated unless needed. Which
again gets back to the fact that if the minimum is sufficiently large then
under normal circumstances there will be no space adjustment. Space will be
added to the pagefile only when more than the currently allocated space is
needed. Throw in the secondary effect that the max size of the pagefile
determines when the system begins to throttle (hint: set the maximum low
enough and you will see the machine crawl, especially under duress).

That advantage to the system managed scenario under XP (as it was with 9x as
well) is that the minimum allocation is typically excessive and the max is
dynamic with headroom; the system can grow the pagefile when under duress
thus pushing off the point in time when the system has to throttle or lock
up.


--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp


"Steve Silverwood" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >, w-
> says...
> > "Steve Silverwood" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > One thing I do on new systems by default is to go in and set the
virtual
> > > memory size to make the minimum size the same as the maximum size.
> > > Doing so avoids fragmentation and performance issues caused by the
> > > system enlarging and shrinking the file as needed. Making the minimum
> > > the same as the maximum gives you a fixed size file, with a
significant
> > > improvement in performance.
> >
> > No it doesn't. Following that advise is how you *throttle* the system
rather
> > than unleash it. ;-)
> > The upper limit on the pagefile determines when the system starts to
> > throttle. And since each VM on the OS is capable of addressing 4G I'll
leave
> > the rest to your imagination.
> >
> > Let the system manage the pagefile.
>
> OK, I don't understand something then. Why is it that every
> installation of WinXP I've seen defaults to a custom page file size with
> a low setting of exactly 1.5 times the amount of installed RAM and a
> high setting of exactly 3 times the amount of RAM? My usual practice is
> to simply make the low end the same as the high end, so that no resizing
> of the page file takes place, and no performance hit due to the system
> having to enlarge and reduce the size of that file.
>
> If letting the system manage the pagefile is the recommended way to go,
> why doesn't a clean install default to "System Managed Pagefile"
> instead?
>
> I'm not upset or refusing criticism, just trying to understand what's
> going on. Thanks for your help.
>
> --
>
> -- //Steve//
>
> Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
> Fountain Valley, CA
> Email:
> Web: http://home.earthlink.net/~kb6ojs_steve