Windows 7 memory management

How good is Windows 7 at keeping your system snappy when you've used all (or nearly all) your available RAM?

...Or maybe I should first ask: How many people here even max out their memory on a regular basis?

 

I have 4GB in my notebook. I've never used all 4 in 7.

 

3 gigs of ram has been 45 to 47% used
2 gig of ram was 52 to 57% used

I have been very impressed since April 2009

 

I did Max my memory usage a few times. It was a rogue FireFox plug-in however and restarted the browser fixed that problem.

Back when I ran my laptop without a swap file, I would get OOM warnings all the time.

 

Ya FFox is great but the last 12 months these versions have been processors and memory hogs! Both Vista and Windows 7 I think its FF and many people have been complaining.

 

I've never yet maxed my memory. I have 2GB. After restart, it uses around 700-800MB, but with browsing and everything else it goes up to 1300MB. I usually close tabs, I don't like to have to many of them.

 

There's this darn svchost that consistently takes up 100mb memory. I don't feel laggy at all, it's all good. Just bugs me.

Either way, average around 30-40% light load of 3gig ram. most probably 52%.

 

do you even know what svchost is??

 

[sarcasm]you should disable it[/sarcasm]

 

I have 4 GB RAM on Windows 7 Pro x64 and I am pretty much always around 30% (~1.4GB) used. When I first start up the computer and let it sit for a minute to load up my gadgets, etc. it is usually around 25%, but goes up to 35% when I have Firefox, iTunes, etc. open.

 

Simple, it doesn't you use HDD like XP does. First your RAM, once your RAM is full, or near full, it moves thing to the page file except for Windows kernel which allows you to have a fast system. in Contrast, in XP no mater how much RAM you have, it dumps everything it can (things you don't use) on your HDD page file.

If you do this, then you need to upgrade your system RAM. That simple. Reaching your max RAM should not even be a rare occasion, it should simply not happen.

 

mine has 2.5GB but i usualy use around 50-85% on any given ocassion(i like to keep alot of stuff open even if i don't use it for days)

 

Here´s the memory usage of my win7 thats been on a few days i turn it off with hibernate. The image is from win7 resource monitor:

- Green: memory used by apps, drivers and OS
- Blue: free memory containing cashed data and code (released/overwritten if if needed by other apps)
- Lightblue: free memory not containing anything

 

I have 8GB RAM and Pagefile set to only 128MB so it look a bit different.
It looks however, as though even with 4GB RAM one could almost go without Pagefile.

Computer restarted daily.

 

Ughh, Virtual RAM usage has nothing to do with free RAM....

 

I have 4GB ram and no page file on my U81a notebook and Windows 7 HP 64 bit. On boot and I'll see about 1.15GB used and sometimes get up to 1.75GB used but rarely above that. With My P7805 and Windows 7 RC 64 bit and no page file I'd only get to the OOM in some games..........

 

when i was running with 2gb of memory or less, I used the free "advanced system care", it comes with a separate memory manger module called smart memory that boots at startup and found it to be very good at freeing memory and uses very little system memory itself, I always though that memory managers where a waste of money but this one appears to work, give it a go.

 

I just let Windows handle memory with default settings. It seems to do the job well enough.

 

I had 4 GB in my old 1640 laptop with a Core 2 Duo T9800 processor, and when playing Crysis, all 4 GB would be used (I turn pagefiling off). Surprisingly, even though I get a memory low warning, everything still runs normally.

I now have 8 GB DDR3 and the max I get is like 30%.

 

Windows 7 already put everything on your RAM.. page file usage is backup and not in use.

You guys are confusing with XP, where it does the opposite as it's optimize for 128-256MB of RAM. So it puts everything is can, even program you JUST minimized in to the HDD. Disabling page file on Vista/Win7 provides nothing, only the danger of having a/some program crash on you as soon as it doesn't have enough memory to use for what it needs. Also, if you program or game crashes while it saves... well you just lost your work.

 

Good luck with convincing folks of this. I have beat my head on that brick wall so many times. Why folks insist on dropping the pagefile is just beyond comprehension. It has been shown time and again in REAL tests that doing so provides NO performance enhancement whatsoever.

Gary

 

You mean with 8GB RAM I still need 8GB RAM pagefile?

I have had 8GB RAM in my psuedo desktop PC and pagefile set to 128MB and have not had a single crash/ freeze/ BSOD/ any problem whatsoever.

The HDDs activity has definitely lessened.

 

Ok, benefits;
1.) More HDD space left over.
2.) Less disc i/o (read/writes) to page file.
3.) Page sits toward the middle of the drive so less waiting for random, or even sequential, access HDD times.
4.) reduction maintenance of memory. (windows deciding to read/write to page file and clean up memory).

diasadvantage(s);
1.) if it crashes you may loose work or error reporting capability.
2.) OOM messages can more easilly appear.

Well my system has plenty of ram so no OOM's here. My systems are plenty stable so no crashes either. If I were a gamer then OOM's might appear but I'm not. While the benefits are minimal with fast HDD's I like every benefit I can get............

 

You always need more RAM... Heck even both my parents which only use the internet, ended up require a RAM upgrade from the 1GB to 4GB as they received constant "low virtual memory" message under XP... despite having page file on, and having XP dumping everything on the HDD. And now they have Win7... it requires more.

As we have more memory, website gets fancier and fancier, software and OS, get's also more fancier and provide more and more features, and more complicated (I mean compared to Windows 95) graphics, that you need more computer power and memory all the time, even for basic things, such as web surfing and typing text in Word.

On my laptop (see signature) which has 4GB of RAM, I do programming, gaming (TF2, L4D2, used to play farCry2, among others), run Virtual PC environment (XP Mode to test my software under XP on the go), and photoshop (I draw many UI elements for my own software). I did ran a test of disabling pagefile.
- I had no increase in system speed in any way...
- I did not feel any reduction of HDD activity even on demanding scenarios
- My battery life did not diminish.. or if it did.. it's under 5 min where I can see, and this is out of ~9 hours.

When I used to have XP installed on that system before when I used to run Vista (I did a dual boot as my test environment... as back at the time I required to do things that I am unable to do under XP running under virtual environment). In XP, disabling page file provided me with a visible improvement in performance, the system was more responsive, and I gain 30min of battery life, surpassing by a bit (~30 min) Vista battery life.

 

The benefits are not "minimal", the benefits don't exist. Oh wait, yes one exists, you use 2-4 gb less disk space. Big freakin' deal. As for all the rest of these so called "benefits" in every real scientifically done test, it has been proven time and again that there is no performance increase by disabling the page file. None, zero, nada, zilch.

So if the 2gb of disk space is worth the possibility the of loss work you have done, go for it. Just make sure you never mention that fact when you apply for a job somewhere.

Gary

 

Wait, wait, one sec.

Just over a month ago I started a thread about 8GB RAM and the best way to use it Recommendations for an 8GB RAM System

In the 2nd reply I was sent to a website with benchmarks regarding Pagefile - How to Optimise your SWAP File and just to make sure you do not say it is outdated by the mere fact it calls it SWAP File, it does that for a reason and explains later on.

In the tests they found, that the best scenario for a system with a lot of RAM, and I believe 8GB RAM without gaming is A LOT, is using only a tiny Page File.

Are you now telling me, that whatever was ok less than two months ago is bad now?

 

I don't know what was ok less than two months ago, but the more RAM you have, the less pagefile you need. The old "1.5x your RAM" saying was never true - on a system with only 256MB you need a lot more pagefile than 1.5x RAM, on a system with 4GB or more you need a lot less.

On my main system i have 8GB RAM, pagefile disabled, still running Vista 64 as i don't feel like upgrading to 7 it right now. I have hit 7.3GB usage once, and it's best you don't know how much stuff i was running.

On my laptops i have 2GB RAM and i left the pagefile enabled but i don't care much about it. I let Win7 handle it by itself and it works fine.

 

I know that as an admin in a professional setting disabling the page file is a no-no. But I do it for me, no one else! With Win7 there is less need for disabling the page file but the systems desktop feels much more snappy not using up access time on the HD. Where SSD’s are concerned running without a page file has another bonus, drive life.

There is no synthetic benchmark that will show any benefit. It is the snappiness of the systems I like. I am sorry you haven’t experienced this, maybe something else is up with the systems you’ve tried this on? Just because you do not experience a benefit does not mean I don’t.

Sorry my systems do not crash. My only one that did regularly was the XT5000T and for that reason I kept the page file there. At least until I replaced the wireless card that was conflicting with the video.

Also 4 gig’s to someone running a 64GB SSD is a lot! While it is a small amount on my 500GB HDD that doesn’t mean I like it there. If you don’t mind it, the more power to you..............

 

yes because you will really keep your SSD after 5-6 years... By then you'll will have 1-2TB SSD's drive for less than HDD's. Already, it is expected to have SSD's to drop in price in 2010.. but that is a different story.

 

Again, people are citing "write" cycles.

I give up.

 

No, I will tell you that any "benchmark" that utilizes only the creation and manipulation of a large image as a definitive scenario is laughable at best. I am always amazed at such magazine "experts" who somehow think they know more about the inner works of an operating system than the folks who create them for a living. If you want to trust this so called expert and his so called benchmark go right ahead.

Gary

 

Oh I see, we are going to take anecdotal "snappiness" over benchmarks. Ever here of the placebo effect?

Want to read some definitive REAL info on the subject:

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx
http://www.tweakhound.com/xp/virtualmemory.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech
(Some of these were written for earlier versions of Windows, but the information therein still applies.)

Gary

 

Dude, I've been working with personal computers since 1979, I think I know when a computer is more responsive! You can argue this till you are green in the face, you can't take away the experience I have! And over synthetic benchmarks, yes sir. There isn't even one synthetic benchmark to measure user desktop experience.

I see you need an example, ok; All PC's have a keyboard buffer. If the system gets tied up for a split second the keyboard buffer takes up the slack. The computer then thinks it has responded timely and has displayed all keys. We however see the characters stutter/pause displaying on the screen. The same can be said for frame rates in games. This is why you can see benchmark numbers that for all intents should indicate fluid motion but still perceive stutter. I could go on but I think you get the idea.

So back to the point, it all has to deal with subsystem I/O. I am not about to go over all of that here. You can look it up but trust in that it gets real deep. There are literally tens of thousands of white papers out there for you. So if you don’t believe in the documentation, go argue it out with them. Then again that will put you in the boat of arguing with Microsoft, Intel, AMD and other industry icons that originally tell you that you need a page file…………

Edit; another prime example. The industry's latest attempts at a cure for this. Intel Turbo memory, even Microsofts speed boost. Push the I/O issues to another device. So the industry will tell you there isn't an issue while try and give you you the cure or a fix for that issue. So in otherwords don't believe all you read or take everything they say in good faith........

 

I have been at this since 1968 and owned the first computer store in Cincinnati in 1976 when microcomputers were sold as a bag of parts. So spare me the "I am experienced" stuff. I've seen folks disable their pagefiles, I've tried it too. I have yet to see it make the machine "snappier". I have yet to see it have ANY performance improvement. If you think you are seeing it great, more power to you.

Care to site a link for any of this and their relationship to this supposed pagefile issue? The Turbo memory and "speed boost" still write to the pagefile. So I doubt that these efforts are to fix some issue with the pagefile writes impacting performance.

Gary

 

I know. it's terrible.

people spend so much time tweaking their system to solve placebos and lies, it's unbelievable. and it's fun how they, then, even believe it to be true, to make themself feel good about it.



in short: leave page file as is. even on an ssd, even in small space situations, it's NEVER a problem (i lived with a vista on 32gb ssd installation, it was NEVER a problem). there is 0 gain in changing the page file. none. there ARE gains to leave it as is. while maybe tiny, they are there.


but it's talking against a wall.. a stupid one, actually

 

i love you, just for that reason: to off anyone with "i know more, i'm older, i have the bigger .. "

and besides, when being "in this since so long", the most important thing is not knowledge, but being able to drop old knowledge once it's not true anymore. a thing, the poster looks like he has big issues with.

 

I give up! If you have been around this long you have formed an opinion with/out reasearching it, or you just like the debate. the fact you state how do these white papers pertain to page file issues without admiting the page file causes I/O. Also if you can't understand the advantages of using another hardware device and it's impact on the I/O subsystem. No way you are sucking me into this.

So you win, debate over...........

 

Dude, I'll be the first to agree that it is no where near the issue it once was. Hardware is faster and the OS uses the page file way less. But it is still there so it is still an issue, albeit I'll agree slight...........

Anyway, again debate is over, he wins. and yes, I will drop the knowledge when it is no longer a valid one to any degree. Fr this reason though I've had to forget thousands of time more things than I know becasue they are no longer relevant.

And no I'm not older, bigger, badder or anything else! just stating I'm not a noob and so just the statement of around since 1979. So anyway who started mentioning experience, not I. So I've been around for just a bit, I've done my reasearch and stay very current with hardware and OS issues.

And as I've stated for sometime, for all others too read, do not disable your page file unless you are fully knowledgable of pro's and cons. And yes people there are pro's and con's, it is always a double edged sword.........

 

well, there aren't really pros and cons that are noticeable, which is what we try to state. except the con, that, when it's disabled, you increase system instability, and remove the possibility to, after some issue, find out what caused it.

we could now debate if it's measurable. and i say no, on vista or win7, it's not even that. fact is, those os' don't page out stuff that you use normally, ever, except if memory is too low to use it all. so even while it might result in some disk io (which even microsoft states is NOT REALLY TRUE ANYMORE), it should NEVER result in disk io slowing down your experience.

which is what might be something you just don't want to accept.

 

I never claimed that the pagefile does not cause I/O. If I had claimed such why would I say:

I said that this I/O does not negatively affect performance.

I noticed how you ignored the fact that even with turbo memory and speed boost the pagefile is STILL written to. Instead you just want to throw up your hands and run away from the discussion. Fine do so, I could care less. But don't expect me to stand aside if you raise such claims in the future.

Gary

 

But, but, but... his machine is "snappier". He just knows it is.

Gary

 

Hi, I didn't say it eliminated the page file I/O, I stated it put it to another device, reread my post(s). And as I've stated you win, I give up! Only returning to make sure you understood my post(s). I don't mind giving up when someone has made up their mind, just want to be sure I'm not misunderstood..........

Edit; And I'll apollogise if any of my posts are misinterpeted as "You should disable yours too" They are not meant that way in any sense. I will only ever disable my own and NEVER recomend anyone else do it. Again if you are that determined for the slight improvements be real sure you know what you are getting yourself into!!!!!!!!!!

 

Ultimately, its up to the user how a computer is used, and what settings are on and off, and how its configured.
If you can't change an opinion, leave it alone.

I turned it off on my old desktop that even has 384MB of ram, mainly because its just used as a torrent downloader, I don't use it for anything else.

I have it off on my laptop because I haven't gone past use of 3.75GB of my RAM, even though Windows start giving popups if my uptime creeps past 5 days with Opera open the entire time; maybe a sign i should turn it back on, haha. Still, I haven't had any problems turning it off on my laptop; it just depends on how you want the system to run, and what you want enabled.