Low memory after applying a few tweaks - not sure why.

Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Kevin Ar18, Nov 13, 2002.

  1. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    I applied two memory tweaks to my system and now I'm getting low memory warnings when I try to paste say a page of text from my clipboard (screenshots seem to do fine with no low memory warnings):

    45% or 234MB of my 512MB of memory is reported to be in use (that leaves me with 55% or 277MB free!!)
    Only 196MB of my 1.22GB Page file is being used.
    Only 46MB of my 2GB Virtual memory is being used.

    Any ideas why I'm getting this memory warning?



    Here's the two tweaks I applied:
    XP memory tweaks TOP http://www.xp-erience.org/articles.php?action=show&id=19#u
    Below are some Windows XP memory tweaks. They are located in the windows registry at: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SYSTEM/CurrentControlSet/Control/ SessionManager/MemoryManagement

    DisablePagingExecutive (0>1) - When enabled, this setting will prevent the paging of the Win2k Executive files to the hard drive, causing the OS and most programs to be more responsive. However, it is advised that people should only perform this tweak if they have a significant amount of RAM on their system (more than 128 MB), because this setting does use a substantial portion of your system resources. By default, the value of this key is 0. To enable it, set it to 1.
    LargeSystemCache (0>1) - When enabled (the default on Server versions of Windows 2000), this setting tells the OS to devote all but 4 MB of system memory (which is left for disk caching) to the file system cache. The main effect of this is allowing the computer to cache the OS Kernel to memory, making the OS more responsive. The setting is dynamic and if more than 4 MB is needed from the disk cache for some reason, the space will be released to it. By default, 8MB is earmarked for this purpose. This tweak usually makes the OS more responsive. It is a dynamic setting, and the kernel will give up any space deemed necessary for another application (at a performance hit when such changes are needed). As with the previous key, set the value from 0 to 1 to enable. Note that in doing this, you are consuming more of your system RAM than normal. While LargeSystemCache will cut back usage when other apps need more RAM, this process can impede performance in certain intensive situations. According to Microsoft, the "[0] setting is recommended for servers running applications that do their own memory caching, such as Microsoft SQL Server, and for applications that perform best with ample memory, such as Internet Information Services."
     
  2. stuy_b

    stuy_b Guest

    Have you tried "Cacheman v5.11" from Outer Technologies (http://www.outertech.com/product.php?product=3&PHPSESSID=4f11dc8ca197ac2c5917d3fba0096adf) its much easier than fidlling in the registry, and easier to set back to your original settings should you run into problems.

    I noticed your pagefile is well, Massive, way too big IMO, you dont need it that big, unless your doing some serious , and i mean serious processing.

    Hope this opens some options for you m8.
     
  3. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    let's solve the problem without using cacheman please.

    cacheman WILL slow down xp.

    ok, let's discuss the tweaks

    dissableing the win executive files to the harddrive

    I don't see how this will speed computing...if files are being used, they are not written to disc, if they are being used, then you don't want them to be resident in cache, do you?

    I'm just trying to figure these tweaks out.

    I've learned that most opld tweaks are counter productive in subsequemt releases of an ms os, because ms tries it's best to make the os as responsive as possible, so they would set this up as the default setting if the tweak was valid...unless ms never heard of this tweak...does anyone here believe that?

    now, tweak number two...I'm sorry...this tweak looks like it falls to my reasoning in tweak number one....whatever has been used recently, is in cache, is in cache all ready, and if it's not in cache, why would you want it there, as it's information that is not neccessary in cache.

    I didn't read the whole post, so I'll get back here, but I'm just trying to get users to examin performance tweaks,, before they accept that a performance tweak is valid.

    you see, xp is all ready set for best performance, for most users...any adjustments you make, will be at a sacrifice in performance somewhere.

    some of us know where a trade of is desireable, but most of us do not.

    so, let's just take better looks at old tweaks before we accept that they are still valid, if a performance tweak was valid in a previous os, then it is almost almost always not valid in xp
     
  4. Octopus

    Octopus Moderator

    Messages:
    1,200
    maybe if you defrag your OS will help.because I heard about this before!
     
  5. allan

    allan Guest

    From one of my favorite technical sites, Is It True.org (http://is-it-true.org/nt/registry/rtips144.shtml)


    LargeSystemCache is the one of the two registry settings manipulated by the Control Panel dialog not available in NT Workstation. If you turn on LargeSystemCache=1, assuming you have 96MB+ RAM, then you should see a significant performance boost for CPU and AV intensive applications but little or no improvement for I/O bound applications. I would use 128MB and 256MB as minimums for Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro, respectively.

    DisablePagingExecutive default setting was "set" when RAM was precious and scarce. Portions of system code and device drivers can be paged to disk when the system needs more page frames in RAM. The system slows when it next needs that code or drivers since it must load them from the page file. The system stops while the required code is swapped in or out of RAM dependent on very long hard drive access times. If you have more than sufficient RAM, disabling paging will speed the system overall. I am not sure I would turn on this option with less than 512M, at least for W2K and XP Pro. A CPU intensive setting.
     
  6. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    allan, any idea why kevin is getting low memory warnings?...looking at his setup, it looks like he shouldn't be getting these warnings
     
  7. allan

    allan Guest

    Not sure.

    Kevin, have you looked in Task Manager to see what is using the most memory? Also, is anything using a lot of the cpu?

    You said this started after doing those tweaks - right after? Did it not occur before that? What happens if you undo the tweaks - does everything go back to normal?
     
  8. allan

    allan Guest

    Also, is the only time you get this warning when you use the clipboard?
     
  9. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    I'd undue each tweak one at a time.

    you can moniter how much ram is released by opening perfmon, the commit charge will vary according to the memory set that the os is putting aside for the program
     
  10. stuy_b

    stuy_b Guest

    Hmmm??? cacheman, has speeded up my PC
     
  11. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    stuy, many times, we hear that a program is doing good, so we try it, and we believe what we've been told.

    this is the case with memory managers.

    you see, xp releases all the memory that is not in use...it allready does this...a memory program can only further release memory that is in use.

    so, any further memory released will slow down a process that is in use...there are no two ways about this stuy.

    so, ya, you can notice a program loading faster if you releasse ram, but at what price?

    first, you have to release the ram, and that very process will slow you down, and then it will remain slow, untill the os catches up.

    next, whatever ram is released will have to be reclaimed by the process that it was taken from, and you won't even realize it was the memory program that caused the slowdown...it'll just seem slower, or maybe not, you might not even realize the slowdown.

    you might see your icons become irradic for a couple, or the file you're working on take an extra sec to go to something else.

    now, if you have a pagefile that is too small, then, since theses memory management programs create their own pagefile, (it's called a backup file, but it's a pagefile), possibly you are running faster, because with the program, your too low pagefile setting is made due by the memory program.

    see?
     
  12. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    Nothing is really using up memory. I've got hundreds of megabytes free all the time.

    However, I think you may have hit the nail on the head with the comment about the clipboard.

    I can't figure out when it happens, but yes, I do think it ALWAYS has something to do with the clipboard. My system actually has plenty of memory when I get the message, however, it just seems to happen when I have the right combination of things occurring on my system.


    I'll give you two examples of when it happend.

    1) I had been rendering an image in Mojoworld for a number of hours.
    2) I opened a few apps like say IE and Outlook Express

    Then I think I got the message when I tried pasting a screenshot into the image editor.
    Either that or I was copying and pasting stuff to or from notepad.

    Second example:
    I had OpenOffice.org Writer open, IE, Outlook Express, notepad, and Microsoft Works.
    I copied something from IE into notepad, then I copied just a small section of it in notepad.
    Then I tried to paste it into MS Works and got the memory message.


    And you wanna know something else? I can't reproduce it. Just two instances is not enough to determine what it is, but I think the clipboard theory might have something to do with it..
     
  13. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    Let me just say that originally the whole purpose of applying those tweaks was to get XP to use up all (or as much as possible) of the RAM before it starts using the pagefile/virtual memory.

    Even after applying this tweak, I still have pagefile useage. Is there any way to get the OS to use up the RAM first since I have so much available?
     
  14. allan

    allan Guest

    Yeah, I'm not surprised. But I would be surprised if the problem isn't still present after you undo those tweaks - they shouldn't have anything to do with the problem you describe. Having said that, I'm not sure what is causing the problem, but I have a suggestion. Something appears to be confilicting or corrupted.

    First let's try to rule out the second possibility. Go to Start - Run and type: sfc /scannow (ENTER). Let it run. If the problem doesn't recur, you're in good shape. If it does, let's move on to number two:

    go to misconfig and do a selective startup - disable everything from starting - and reboot. Now try to recreate the problem. If you cannot do it, there may be a conflict. Start adding things back one at a time and on each reboot try to get that error message back. If at some point you are successful, you have probably identified the offending program / service.

    BTW, you didn't say if this only just started or if perhaps it was there before. Last restorst? A system restore to just before the error occured and as a very last resort, a repair installation. If you need to do the repair install and aren't sure how, come back and I'll walk you through it. Sorry for the lengthy reply.
     
  15. allan

    allan Guest

    The OS is going to use the pagefile if and when it wants to no matter what you do - and that's the way it should be. Don't interfere with Mother Nature or Father Bill - like it or not, they both know what they are doing.
     
  16. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    The problems started just after I did those two tweaks.
     
  17. allan

    allan Guest

    Don't know why they should cause this problem, but undo them. They are not going to do much for your system anyway.
     
  18. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    Just because we can't figure out this problem right now doesn't me we should quit and claim it was never worth it in the first place. The pagefile was only meant to provide extra "RAM" when a computer does not have enought real RAM. If you have an overabundance of RAM on your system, using a pagefile while not using your RAM is inefficient.
    Putting stuff in RAM instead of a pagefile is always faster and is the optimal way if you have the memory.

    If I get any more information I'll post it.
    Next time it occurs, do you have any suggestions for things I should look at to help track this problem down?
     
  19. Kevin Ar18

    Kevin Ar18 OSNN Senior Addict

    Messages:
    300
    Let's see...

    1) I'll need to take a look at the amount of memory all my processes are taking up
    2) Amount of phsical RAM left/used
    3) Pagefile used/remaining
    4) Circumstances surrounding when the error occurred


    BTW, would someone care to explain the difference between the pagefile and virtual memory?
     
  20. Perris Calderon

    Perris Calderon Moderator Staff Member Political User

    Messages:
    12,332
    Location:
    new york
    kevin...you are misslead, and this is another discussion, but I can't let your statement stand, as I don't want others to be misslead..

    no...there is never a time that pagefile is used before ram...never

    what you see is pagefile activity, iit is not pagefile use... in fact, just the pagefile getting ready to be used...it is not pagefile use, itis just pagefile activity

    second, the os uses the pagefile for kernal stability...so it has other purposes besides what you've believed.

    the operating system will always find addresses for the ram that you are using, but it will not write to the addresses, till neccessary, and then it will not read from disc, till the information is not in ram


    now, let's discuss this on another thread if you wnat, or do a search for pagefile for more info in this

    , but for now, let's get back to letting allan try to help you.

    good luck, I'm lost