The answer to an old question ...

mechanic wrote:
Jeff Barnett wrote:
The question: What on Earth would you do with a 64GB memory?

Read on for the answer!

Years ago on a newsgroup comp.os...dos4 or somesuch, there was a long
discussion on what could one possibly do with 4MB of RAM, the best
suggestions then was to use any excess as a ramdisk. Moore's law in
action!

This is how I split mine. Most of it is a RAMDisk,
except when I need it and then I turn the RAMDisk off.

https://s9.postimg.org/nm6hebof3/ram.gif

The speed of the RAMDisk, changes with OS revision.
The very worst it has benched at, is only 1GB/sec on
the very first Release version of Windows 10.

There appears to be a call you can make to the RAMDisk
which is similar to Secure Erase, and I caught it once
doing writes to RAM at 10GB/sec (using perfmon.msc).
That's the very best I've ever got out of it, and
it never goes that fast for anything that counts.

I think the RAMDisk could go marginally faster,
if Microsoft would let the desktop version
of Windows 10 use Large Pages. No matter what any
ill-mannered documentation says, it just isn't there.
You can set a registry entry for it and... nada.

Paul

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , mechanic
writes:
Jeff Barnett wrote:
The question: What on Earth would you do with a 64GB memory?

Read on for the answer!

Years ago on a newsgroup comp.os...dos4 or somesuch, there was a long
discussion on what could one possibly do with 4MB of RAM, the best
suggestions then was to use any excess as a ramdisk. Moore's law in
action!

IT was ever thus (I meant to type "It", but it came out IT - which is
also appropriate!): I think it's attributed to Bill Gates "no-one will
ever need more than 640K of memory", or words to that effect, and before
that, "wonderful invention this telephone: I can see a time when every
town will have one" (or similar).

There's a better quote than that out there.

A professor wrote a submission to an IEEE computing journal,
in which he confidently claimed "if a computer had 10GB of RAM,
that would essentially be infinite, and you'd never run out".
Paraphrasing a bit. At the time, the amount sounded insane,
compared to the puny amount computers actually had. So the
professor doubled-down on the Bill Gates quote :-)

I'm sure that professor has been careful not to upgrade
the computer he uses, and put too much RAM in it. We
wouldn't want to hit infinity by accident. Maybe as
a retirement gift, they'll give him a computer
with 11GB of RAM.

Paul

In message , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
writes:
In message , Jeff Barnett
writes:
[]
I'm also loath to go
away from Windows since things like UNIX derivatives take so much more
work (compiling, making, etc.); it's sort of like masturbation without
the fun.
I was tempted to add that to my quotes file too, just can't be bothered
with the comeback (-:
I had one of the first PDP 11 machines way back when. C and UNIX were
both icon and pathetic even then.
I know what you mean about "icon". At that time (around 1980 for me),
among the high priesthood, any criticism of C was just not tolerated.
(Although I don't remember thinking UNIX was any worse than any of the
alternatives we had then - I forget what those were.)

I forgot to add: if you really wanted to irritate the C priesthood (to
the extent that they'd probably try to exorcise you!), put a GOTO in a C
program! I was so delighted when I discovered that GOTO _is_ in the C
language - it's even in Kernighan and Ritchie. (Yes, I do understand
why its use should be _limited_ - but for certain things, such as error
handling, it saves a lot of brain-ache - assuming the compiler handles
the stacking properly, which it ought to.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Won't you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you. -Richard

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
writes:
In message , Jeff Barnett
writes:
[]
I'm also loath to go
away from Windows since things like UNIX derivatives take so much
more work (compiling, making, etc.); it's sort of like masturbation
without the fun.
I was tempted to add that to my quotes file too, just can't be
bothered with the comeback (-:
I had one of the first PDP 11 machines way back when. C and UNIX were
both icon and pathetic even then.
I know what you mean about "icon". At that time (around 1980 for me),
among the high priesthood, any criticism of C was just not tolerated.
(Although I don't remember thinking UNIX was any worse than any of the
alternatives we had then - I forget what those were.)

I forgot to add: if you really wanted to irritate the C priesthood (to
the extent that they'd probably try to exorcise you!), put a GOTO in a C
program! I was so delighted when I discovered that GOTO _is_ in the C
language - it's even in Kernighan and Ritchie. (Yes, I do understand
why its use should be _limited_ - but for certain things, such as error
handling, it saves a lot of brain-ache - assuming the compiler handles
the stacking properly, which it ought to.)

There's no lack of terms for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code

Now, who hasn't done something like this at some
point in their life...

1 i=0
2 i+=1
3 PRINT i; "squared=";i*i
4 IF i100 THEN GOTO 6
5 GOTO 2
6 PRINT "Program Completed."
7 END

Perfectly good to-ing and fro-ing there.

A tortured construct in action.

I've seen a few .BAT written that way.

Once you get up to around three levels of nesting
implemented with GOTO, you'll never figure it out.

Paul

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:
I understand Check Disk grabbing all the memory it could for buffers -
easier to grab then reason about reasonable behavior - but I'm puzzled
by MalwareBytes' behavior.


rant
I'm recently become really disappointed with them.

I had the free scan-only version, but a pop-up said there was a new
program version so I clicked it. It installed a trial of Premium,
which did not work well. Scans still worked, but it kept popping up
complaints that I was not protected. So I went to the settings for
real-time protection. One of the four was turned on, and the other
three were turned off.

No problem, you'd say: just turn them on. I tried. One immediately
set itself back to "off"; the other two stuck at "Starting..." for
half an hour until I finally closed the window. This wasn't an
isolated instance; it happened again on two succeeding days.

I was unable to find any email address for support. They have a Web
page, but it doesn't work without Javascript -- ridiculous for a
security product (or any other product IMHO).
/rant

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
I forgot to add: if you really wanted to irritate the C priesthood
(to the extent that they'd probably try to exorcise you!), put a GOTO
in a C program! I was so delighted when I discovered that GOTO _is_
in the C language - it's even in Kernighan and Ritchie. (Yes, I do
understand why its use should be _limited_ - but for certain things,
such as error handling, it saves a lot of brain-ache - assuming the
compiler handles the stacking properly, which it ought to.)

There's no lack of terms for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code

Now, who hasn't done something like this at some
point in their life...

1 i=0
2 i+=1
3 PRINT i; "squared=";i*i
4 IF i100 THEN GOTO 6
5 GOTO 2
6 PRINT "Program Completed."
7 END

Ah, BASIC - a much-maligned language, IMO; it was easy to code in, and I
suspect even those who've never learnt it can follow the above.

Perfectly good to-ing and fro-ing there.

A tortured construct in action.

Though I'd never have jumped round a GOTO - instead of

4 IF i100 THEN GOTO 6
5 GOTO 2

I'd have said
4 IF I 101 THEN GOTO 2

(no 5 being necessary). Unless you were doing that deliberately to
illustrate spaghetti.

I've seen a few .BAT written that way.

Once you get up to around three levels of nesting
implemented with GOTO, you'll never figure it out.

Paul

True. But the blanket ban on it - not to mention the absolute horror of
the priesthood should you even remind them that C does include it -
always struck me as a bit unnecessary.

IF overflow THEN GOTO loo ELSE GOTO bed
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother,"saidPoohwhenhisspacebarrefusedtowork.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:

I noticed later that a MalwareBytes process was now holding
63+GB private memory. I rebooted at this point.

Mbam pushed a bad update yesterday. I had to uninstall it after
rebooting ... before it consumed all memory. Google it.

--

Dennis

"Jeff Barnett" wrote

| Things seemed to return to normal when the Check Disk run completed.
| However, I noticed later that a MalwareBytes process was now holding
| 63+GB private memory. I rebooted at this point.
|

I'd guess a bug in the reporting. If MB is also
set to scan activity then maybe MB is scanning
what CheckDisk is doing? It doesn't seem a problem
to use all the RAM for that. That's what it's for.
But it obviously can't be MB using all the RAM.

Like others, I wouldn't use MB. Unlike others,
I never thought it was a good idea. Too much
reckless malware labeling and not enough info.
Sometimes I use it for a 1-time run if I'm
suspicious about a system, but I'd never
recommend it to anyone because if you don't
fully understand each reported item it can do
more harm than good.
The first time I ran it on my own system it
reported several Registry settings that I want
but that MB implied were malware effects. It
also reported some harmless Registry settings.
And it told me my boot/disk-image program,
Boot-It, was a known malware program!
10 warnings. All of them either irrelevant or
reckless.

Running anything like that to constantly scan
is especially wasteful, since the vast majority
of what we do on computers involves files that
are already trusted. Why would you run AV/MB with
such a configuration while running Check Disk?

On 01/28/2018 8:09 AM, FredW wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:

The question: What on Earth would you do with a 64GB memory?

Read on for the answer!

A few nights ago I ran Check Disk with discover and recover options on a
4TB HD. It was a disk that could be dismounted while Win 7 PRO SP1 64
bit continued running. It took quite a while to finish. When I looked at
the Task Manager's Performance Screen during this operation I noted that
the claim was 63.6GB Physical Memory in use.

Things seemed to return to normal when the Check Disk run completed.
However, I noticed later that a MalwareBytes process was now holding
63+GB private memory. I rebooted at this point.

I understand Check Disk grabbing all the memory it could for buffers -
easier to grab then reason about reasonable behavior - but I'm puzzled
by MalwareBytes' behavior. Anyone want to venture an opinion, informed
or otherwise, about that?


In the Malwarebytes forum, Malwarebytes News:
- IMPORTANT: Web Blocking / RAM Usage
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...ing-ram-usage/

also:
- Borked Malwarebytes update causes high RAM and CPU usage
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/01/28/bo...igh-ram-usage/

Yesterday my computer went haywire (froze).
When I found out this was caused by MBAM,
I switched MBAM off and restarted.
(use Ctrl + Shift + Esc to open Windows Task Manager)

This morning I forced an update of MBAM and restarted.
All is well now.


I see that Malware-bytes is back to normal, But on closer look it it
still using up about 300MB of memory whichto me is too much.
I have now uninstalled it and will not use it until it uses way less.

Rene

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:50:37 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote in

On 01/28/2018 8:09 AM, FredW wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:

The question: What on Earth would you do with a 64GB memory?

Read on for the answer!

A few nights ago I ran Check Disk with discover and recover options on a
4TB HD. It was a disk that could be dismounted while Win 7 PRO SP1 64
bit continued running. It took quite a while to finish. When I looked at
the Task Manager's Performance Screen during this operation I noted that
the claim was 63.6GB Physical Memory in use.

Things seemed to return to normal when the Check Disk run completed.
However, I noticed later that a MalwareBytes process was now holding
63+GB private memory. I rebooted at this point.

I understand Check Disk grabbing all the memory it could for buffers -
easier to grab then reason about reasonable behavior - but I'm puzzled
by MalwareBytes' behavior. Anyone want to venture an opinion, informed
or otherwise, about that?


In the Malwarebytes forum, Malwarebytes News:
- IMPORTANT: Web Blocking / RAM Usage
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...ing-ram-usage/

also:
- Borked Malwarebytes update causes high RAM and CPU usage
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/01/28/bo...igh-ram-usage/

Yesterday my computer went haywire (froze).
When I found out this was caused by MBAM,
I switched MBAM off and restarted.
(use Ctrl + Shift + Esc to open Windows Task Manager)

This morning I forced an update of MBAM and restarted.
All is well now.


I see that Malware-bytes is back to normal, But on closer look it it
still using up about 300MB of memory whichto me is too much.
I have now uninstalled it and will not use it until it uses way less.

Rene

I just looked at mine and it's using 159Mb out of 3241Mb memory.
Win7.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 1/28/2018 6:34 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:
I understand Check Disk grabbing all the memory it could for buffers -
easier to grab then reason about reasonable behavior - but I'm puzzled
by MalwareBytes' behavior.


rant
I'm recently become really disappointed with them.

I had the free scan-only version, but a pop-up said there was a new
program version so I clicked it. It installed a trial of Premium,
which did not work well. Scans still worked, but it kept popping up
complaints that I was not protected. So I went to the settings for
real-time protection. One of the four was turned on, and the other
three were turned off.

No problem, you'd say: just turn them on. I tried. One immediately
set itself back to "off"; the other two stuck at "Starting..." for
half an hour until I finally closed the window. This wasn't an
isolated instance; it happened again on two succeeding days.

I was unable to find any email address for support. They have a Web
page, but it doesn't work without Javascript -- ridiculous for a
security product (or any other product IMHO).
/rant


Malwarebytes will turn off all that dynamic behavior after a few weeks, if you just leave it alone
and let it convert to the free version.

On 01/28/2018 3:18 PM, FredW wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:50:37 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:
On 01/28/2018 8:09 AM, FredW wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 15:28:03 -0700, Jeff Barnett wrote:

The question: What on Earth would you do with a 64GB memory?

Read on for the answer!

A few nights ago I ran Check Disk with discover and recover options on a
4TB HD. It was a disk that could be dismounted while Win 7 PRO SP1 64
bit continued running. It took quite a while to finish. When I looked at
the Task Manager's Performance Screen during this operation I noted that
the claim was 63.6GB Physical Memory in use.

Things seemed to return to normal when the Check Disk run completed.
However, I noticed later that a MalwareBytes process was now holding
63+GB private memory. I rebooted at this point.

I understand Check Disk grabbing all the memory it could for buffers -
easier to grab then reason about reasonable behavior - but I'm puzzled
by MalwareBytes' behavior. Anyone want to venture an opinion, informed
or otherwise, about that?


In the Malwarebytes forum, Malwarebytes News:
- IMPORTANT: Web Blocking / RAM Usage
https://forums.malwarebytes.com/topi...ing-ram-usage/

also:
- Borked Malwarebytes update causes high RAM and CPU usage
https://www.ghacks.net/2018/01/28/bo...igh-ram-usage/

Yesterday my computer went haywire (froze).
When I found out this was caused by MBAM,
I switched MBAM off and restarted.
(use Ctrl + Shift + Esc to open Windows Task Manager)

This morning I forced an update of MBAM and restarted.
All is well now.


I see that Malware-bytes is back to normal, But on closer look it is
still using up about 300MB of memory whichto me is too much.
I have now uninstalled it and will not use it until it uses way less.


On my PC
MBAM is using ca. 240 MB.
Palemoon is using 550 MB.
Vivaldi is using 260 + 160 + more smaller amounts of MB.
(I have flightradar running)

I have 8 GB memory available.

Why should I care about a few hundred MB more or less?

If you keep waiting for MBAM to use less, you can wait till the end of
time, I do not see the point of your statement.

By the way, what is the maximum you allow MBAM to use?
And how would you know MBAM uses less of your redundant free memory
when you do not use MBAM?



About 125 MB.

I will check it once in a while.

I have a paid for life version.

Rene

On 28 Jan 2018, CRNG wrote in
alt.windows7.general:

Just curious and willing to consider alternatives. What are you
using in place of MBAM?

I used to use both SuperAntiSpyware and MBAM. MBAM was deadly slow,
they changed their interface to something I don't like, and it never
seemed to find anything anyway. So now I use a combination of
SuperAntiSpyware, Avast, and CCleaner to scan questionable downloads
and to delete tracking cookies. And I keep my antennae extended while
transversing the Web.

Paul news Jan 2018 03:02:35 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

Take for example, the following program. It's short,
and will flog the machine for memory, until at
some point a NULL comes back. The program does
real writes to memory, to keep the process "honest"
and I get real memory and not fake memory or
"lazy evaluation" behavior. The control-C handler
I put in here, is effectively useless and I should
really remove that code - I was hoping it would
make control-C more responsive.

*******
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
#include string.h
#include windows.h

/* gcc -o malloc.exe -Wl,--large-address-aware malloc.c */

BOOL WINAPI handler(DWORD dwCtrlType)
{
if (CTRL_C_EVENT == dwCtrlType)
{
exit(0);
}
return FALSE;
}

int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
SetConsoleCtrlHandler(handler, TRUE);

__int64 time1 = 0, time2 = 0, freq = 0;
QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER *) &time1);
QueryPerformanceFrequency((LARGE_INTEGER *)&freq);

int i = 0;
void *m;

while ( (m = malloc(1024*1024)) != NULL ) {
memset(m,0,1024*1024);
i++;
QueryPerformanceCounter((LARGE_INTEGER *) &time2);
/* t is the time to malloc a megabyte of RAM, a measure of
memory pressure */ printf("%05d megabytes t=%010.6f\n",
i, (float)(time2-time1)/freq);
}
}
*******

That's pretty cool. It just keeps allocating (without giving back)
until there's nothing left.

As for CHKDSK, that one is easy to solve. If you don't
like the behavior of CHKDSK on the x64 OS, find your
x32 OS installer DVD and grab the x32 version of CHKDSK.
It will use up 2GB of RAM or so, rather than the whole
machine. Such a practice would be good for Malwarebytes,
if you were allowed to run a 32 bit version on a 64 bit
machine. While the industry is working to eliminate 32 bit
programs, the "quota" behavior on memory from using
32 bit, does provide a convenient work-around in
cases like this. Not all programs though, give you
granular control over what version gets installed
(like running the 32 bit version on a 64 bit OS).

Interestingly enough, I never had problems like this on various 32bit
older versions of Windows as the OP and yourself have described,
unless there was a bug in a particular program and it just wasn't
releasing what it previously allocated before that's no longer
needed. That being said, I've seen a few programs which would
allocate everything they could by default for performance enhancement
reasons. Caching essentially.

Otherwise, typically, they behave more like these:

My random tagline generator for example is using 16megs of ram, my
usenet client is chewing up 6.7megs, etc. Of a total of 768megs ram
on this ancient machine, 481megs of it is available for use.

It's because the board is coming from a server manufacturer
(Supermicro).

I've built alot of machines using Supermicro boards. Very reliable
when I used them.



--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
'Ethel the Aardvark goes Quantity Surveying'.

On 01/29/2018 7:08 AM, FredW wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:38:43 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:
On 01/28/2018 3:18 PM, FredW wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:50:37 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

I see that Malware-bytes is back to normal, But on closer look it is
still using up about 300MB of memory whichto me is too much.
I have now uninstalled it and will not use it until it uses way less.


On my PC
MBAM is using ca. 240 MB.

By the way, what is the maximum you allow MBAM to use?
And how would you know MBAM uses less of your redundant free memory
when you do not use MBAM?



About 125 MB.

I will check it once in a while.

I have a paid for life version.


+1 (paid version for life)



I will eventually reinstall it when things settle down again, it is good
software and this was just a onetime slip-up.
In the meantime I am also trying out Superantispyware also, Not yet
familiar with it so am wondering what everyone's opinion of it is.

Rene