Tweaking the Virtual Memory?

kdi001 wrote on 2/13/2006, 7:06 AM
In optimizing my XP Pro PC for digital video editing w/ Vegas and the other Sony software, I came across this suggestion: Fixed Swap File (Virtual memory): changing the virtual memory. It states "that for custom size, set it to 1.5 to 2 times the amount of your total RAM for both initial and maximum size. "

Has anyone else done this? If so, what settings would you suggest for my machine (2.00 GB RAM)? I don't want to mess up the settings unless it's warranted and beneficial.

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/13/2006, 7:13 AM
i set my to 3gb & have no problems. I've always found that "1.5 to 2x" a load of poop.
Former user wrote on 2/13/2006, 7:15 AM
TheHappyFriar,

How much ram do you have?

The 1.5x and 2x is a common suggestion. I have 512ram and run my virtual memory at 1000.

Works fine.

Dave T2
rmack350 wrote on 2/13/2006, 8:05 AM
The idea behind setting the min and max to the same setting is to get one constant and contigous page file that Windows won't spend time resizing. Ideally, you'd want to temporarily move the page file to another volume, defrag the volume you plan to put the PF back onto, and then move it back there. This way you should get a relatively unfragmented page file whose performance will be about as good as it can ever be.

If you have the space there's no reason I can think of not to set your PF to a size that's a little higher than recommended. It's pretty rare that you'd use it, I think, and as far as Vegas is concerned you should set a goal of not excercising the page file. It's fine if Word gets written to the page file when you use Vegas but Vegas itself, and the Windows OS, shouldn't end up in the page file. If you are working in Vegas and notice the page file growing while you work while playback performance slows you might consider lowering your RAM Preview setting.

Rob Mack
kdi001 wrote on 2/13/2006, 8:48 AM
Thanks; I'm assuming the four digit number that's listed on my current default setup is in MB, so just so I have my math correct:

One gigabyte equals 1,000MB (to be specific, I've discovered it's 1,024 megabytes). Would that mean 3GB equals 3072MB? Here all this time I thought a gig was 1000.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/13/2006, 9:39 AM
i've got 1gb now. When I had 128 & 256 I followed the recomendation but always, ALWAYS got "out of memory" errors with a 256-768 mb swap file. Upped it to 3gb a few years ago & have never gotten another "out of memory" error since. So, technically, when I went to 256mb & put it at 3gb swap I was ~12x more. Now I'm at 3x more. But, the more ram you have the less swap you actuatly need (because less is used).

They've been saying te 1.5-2x since Windows 3 when computers normally has 2 or 4 mb RAM. it would never work... many programs already required 2-4 MB ram & Windows would eat most of it, even most of the swap file.

ScottW wrote on 2/13/2006, 9:40 AM
1GB is both 1000MB and 1024MB - disk drive manufacturers, DVD's, etc. all express the storage sizes using base ten counting. Windows expresses the sizes using base 2 counting.

--Scott
johnmeyer wrote on 2/13/2006, 11:22 AM
I've done all these tweaks, but I'm not sure it has made much difference. It's a lot of work for extremely small, if any, gain.

There are so many other tweaks that you can do that are FAR more important:

1. Disable indexing!!
2. Disable ALL Anti-Virus checking. If you've gotten even one alert of a real virus, then something else is wrong in your system. You can still do manual checking whenever you like.
3. Eliminate any other program from starting (check these in MSCONFIG) that does any kind of background checking while other programs are running or which intercepts calls to the hard disk (e.g., Adware programs).

cbrillow wrote on 2/13/2006, 4:46 PM
Here is a dandy little free utility that gives much more control over system startup than MSCONFIG.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/13/2006, 6:22 PM
i've found telling the anti-virus to NOT scan files on access but to instead scan all net in/out traffic is almost transparent. AKA when I render in Vegas with my AV just scaning net trafic & with it disabled I get the same render time results.

One time, when I first got a 2gb HD, we made Windows 3.1 had a 1gb swap file. It actuatly booted in a few seconds (as oposed to a minute with letting it decide the swap). That was impressive. :) But I have the bigger swap file to ignore warnings. It has a notible speed increase overa 500mb or 1gb swap file but there's no warnings any more. :)
craftech wrote on 2/13/2006, 8:36 PM
Try this:
Rename the existing System.ini file to System.bak or something else.
Edit the System.ini file
Add the following lines to your
[386Enh] section:


ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1
MinPagingFileSize=311296
MaxPagingFileSize=311296

=================

If you don't already have a [vcache] section cut and paste the following:

[vcache]
chunksize=2048
namecache=4096
directorycache=96

=================
If you already have a [vcache] section change the values to those above. SAVE the file and reboot.
===========
In the swapfile use a manual configuration and set both the minimum and maximum to 304.
Reboot.

If it doesn't help you can set it all back the way it was.

John
fishbelt wrote on 2/14/2006, 9:38 PM
Has anyone tried placing page file on a different hard drive? I read this some were, as I have a second hard drive for storage. It speeds thngs up and the main hard drive dose not seem to work as hard.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 2/15/2006, 5:18 AM
i did that too. i put it on a seperate drive split in two partitions. It is a little bit faster but not really noticable.
Bob Greaves wrote on 2/15/2006, 6:01 AM
As RAM and hard drive space increases this tweak becomes less and less needed. However the two most helpful swap-file tweaks are:

1) having a fixed size where min=max
2) locate swap file on the least intensive drive. (If you are recording multiple tracks of audio do not have the swap file on the same drive as the captured audio.)

The other tweaks mentioned help. The two I mention seem to have the most impact.
craftech wrote on 2/15/2006, 10:05 AM
Has anyone tried placing page file on a different hard drive? I read this some were, as I have a second hard drive for storage. It speeds thngs up and the main hard drive dose not seem to work as hard.
=========
Actually what speeds things up is to put the swapfile on a separate partition but making the partition FAT(16) instead pf FAT32.

John