deleted

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[stuy_b]

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.

 

[Perris Calderon]

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

 

[Octopus]

maybe if you defrag your OS will help.because I heard about this before!

 

[allan]

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.

 

[Perris Calderon]

allan, any idea why kevin is getting low memory warnings?...looking at his setup, it looks like he shouldn't be getting these warnings

 

[allan]

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?

 

[allan]

Also, is the only time you get this warning when you use the clipboard?

 

[Perris Calderon]

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

 

[stuy_b]

Hmmm??? cacheman, has speeded up my PC

 

[Perris Calderon]

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?

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[allan]

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.

 

[allan]

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.

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[allan]

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

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[Perris Calderon]

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