32GB RAM being maxed out and page file going crazy on SSD; Get a dedicated HDD?

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

what is the motherboard and how much RAM will it support? i agree w/ the others: RAM is cheap; just throw more at the problem.

 

Also, if your pagefile is that large, i'd get another SSD for it. Also, have you tried manually limiting the size?

[riahc3]

Hello,

what is the motherboard and how much RAM will it support? i agree w/ the others: RAM is cheap; just throw more at the problem.

Mixing different RAM brands, it comes out to 304 euros to reach 64GB. That aint too cheap...

 

Also, if your pagefile is that large, i'd get another SSD for it. Also, have you tried manually limiting the size?

Its not about large, its about destroying the SSD. And if I limit the size of the page file (0 basically) then what?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

Mixing different RAM brands, it comes out to 304 euros to reach 64GB. That aint too cheap...

 

Its not about large, its about destroying the SSD. And if I limit the size of the page file (0 basically) then what?

It sounds like this is being used in a business environment. Are you using enterprise rated high endurance SSDs? If so, I don't think you'll need to be concerned about the writes... You'll have high endurance drives in a proper redundancy configuration and swap them out as soon as the warranties expire or they fail with minimal impact.

 

I would also dig into the RAM usage and potential swapping that is occurring to get a better idea of what is really occurring. Is it caching? Is it the system constantly being paged out and limiting the application RAM usage would solve the problem? Is there an upper bound? Meaning will the app just consume all of the RAM in the box and keep you in a constant paging scenario no matter how much RAM is in the box?

 

Either way, you want the page file on the fastest disk for obvious reasons. So I wouldn't move it to a HDD...

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

are you buying 32GB more or a completely new 64GB set? What's the RAM in there now, and what are you buying? Just curious.

 

People tend to overestimate the wear-and-tear thing w/ SSDs. It takes GBs per day for years to destroy the cells. SSDs have wear protection and whatnot to compensate.

[xrobwx71]

 

 

SAS and SATA are compatible right? Just need a adapter for the connector

Ill problably look for a no name 15K HDD.

You can use SATA drives on SAS controllers without any problems but not the reverse.

[riahc3]

Hello,

It sounds like this is being used in a business environment. Are you using enterprise rated high endurance SSDs?

No, because due to the nature of the build (overclocked) it served no purpose to the price budget to by enterprise SSDs. It would shoot the budget up way too much and nothing is even saved or stored on this SSD. The only problem is that, when used, the SSD page file is huge.

 

I would also dig into the RAM usage and potential swapping that is occurring to get a better idea of what is really occurring. Is it caching? Is it the system constantly being paged out and limiting the application RAM usage would solve the problem? Is there an upper bound? Meaning will the app just consume all of the RAM in the box and keep you in a constant paging scenario no matter how much RAM is in the box?

There is no boundary in Windows or the program. It simply maxes out when running various simulations.

 

Either way, you want the page file on the fastest disk for obvious reasons. So I wouldn't move it to a HDD...

OK then :) Ill get a short and small 64GB Sandisk SSD that I saw for 50 euros. If it gets trashed early, doesnt really matter.

 

 

are you buying 32GB more or a completely new 64GB set? What's the RAM in there now, and what are you buying? Just curious.

 

People tend to overestimate the wear-and-tear thing w/ SSDs. It takes GBs per day for years to destroy the cells. SSDs have wear protection and whatnot to compensate.

We are going to put 4 * 4GB (16GB) to bring it to 48GB. Communication was changed thruout the day but thats what is gonna be done.

 

 

You can use SATA drives on SAS controllers without any problems but not the reverse.

Understood.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

No, because due to the nature of the build (overclocked) it served no purpose to the price budget to by enterprise SSDs. It would shoot the budget up way too much and nothing is even saved or stored on this SSD. The only problem is that, when used, the SSD page file is huge.

 

There is no boundary in Windows or the program. It simply maxes out when running various simulations.

 

OK then :) Ill get a short and small 64GB Sandisk SSD that I saw for 50 euros. If it gets trashed early, doesnt really matter.

 

 

We are going to put 4 * 4GB (16GB) to bring it to 48GB. Communication was changed thruout the day but thats what is gonna be done.

 

 

Understood.

Maybe I am confused... What problem is being solved here?

 

What does overclocking have to do with what SSD you use? Also, what are you trying to actually solve? Is it just the space that the page file is using? As if it is a space issue then it appears to be an issue of right sizing your drive choice. But then I would argue to put a regular HDD in for the server and then run SSD sensitive applications from the SSD.

 

But I'm not sure I understand the core problem you're solving here. It seems like you saw the page file being large and then decided to spend money because the file is big... As if you don't care about the SSD wearing out then why not just leave it alone and let the current one wear out when it does? I hope you're not using any drive SSD or otherwise without proper backups in place to withstand a drive failure...

[riahc3]

Hello,

Maybe I am confused... What problem is being solved here?

 

What does overclocking have to do with what SSD you use?

I mentioned it because its not worth buying less expensive but with a range of overclocking ability and then spend a lot more on a enterprise grade SSD.

 

Also, what are you trying to actually solve?

What I am trying to solve is that there is no wear-and-tear on the system SSD.

 

I hope you're not using any drive SSD or otherwise without proper backups in place to withstand a drive failure...

Drive failure is irrelevent. Nothing is stored.

I just dont want that SSD that can last 3 years, last 1 because of page file destroying it.

Im about to make the order for the Ultra Plus 64GB SSD so you just stopped me! :laugh: Any comments?

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

I mentioned it because its not worth buying less expensive but with a range of overclocking ability and then spend a lot more on a enterprise grade SSD.

 

What I am trying to solve is that there is no wear-and-tear on the system SSD.

 

Drive failure is irrelevent. Nothing is stored.

I just dont want that SSD that can last 3 years, last 1 because of page file destroying it.

Im about to make the order for the Ultra Plus 64GB SSD so you just stopped me! :laugh: Any comments?

This is what I don't understand though... Why does the wear on the system SSD matter?

 

For a business environment you shouldn't be using anything past the warranty period. If you manage to wear the system SSD out from writes in 3 months then you would be able to use the warranty to replace it... It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.

 

You should be able to handle a system drive failure...

[riahc3]

Hello,

This is what I don't understand though... Why does the wear on the system SSD matter?

Downtime; Nothing more, nothing less.

For a business environment you shouldn't be using anything past the warranty period. If you manage to wear the system SSD out from writes in 3 months then you would be able to use the warranty to replace it... It seems like you have a solution in search of a problem.

 

You should be able to handle a system drive failure...

Lets say it does wear out in 3 months; Wouldnt buying a dedicated SSD JUST for the page file increase that wear out to a year (example) even though the page file SSD would wear out too in 3 months; The difference is that I can keep working.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

Downtime; Nothing more, nothing less.

Lets say it does wear out in 3 months; Wouldnt buying a dedicated SSD JUST for the page file increase that wear out to a year (example) even though the page file SSD would wear out too in 3 months; The difference is that I can keep working.

You still have the problem of downtime at some point in your example. It doesn't matter if it happens in 1 year or in 10 minutes... If downtime is an issue then you need to mitigate it appropriately... Adding another SSD to absorb wear doesn't mitigate against downtime. Instead you're hoping you're kicking the can down the road.

 

I would recommend you appropriately mitigate against downtime due to a drive failure and ignore the wear level of the SSD.

[riahc3]

Hello,

You still have the problem of downtime at some point in your example. It doesn't matter if it happens in 1 year or in 10 minutes... If downtime is an issue then you need to mitigate it appropriately... Adding another SSD to absorb wear doesn't mitigate against downtime. Instead you're hoping you're kicking the can down the road.

 

I would recommend you appropriately mitigate against downtime due to a drive failure and ignore the wear level of the SSD.

Downtime? What downtime would there be?

Without a second drive - Turn off the PC, replace the drive, turn on the PC, reinstall/reimage.

With a second drive - Replace the drive.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

Downtime? What downtime would there be?

Without a second drive - Turn off the PC, replace the drive, turn on the PC, reinstall/reimage.

With a second drive - Replace the drive.

This is assuming the drive that fails is the second drive... If the system SSD fails you're still back at square one...

[riahc3]

Hello,

This is assuming the drive that fails is the second drive... If the system SSD fails you're still back at square one...

Well, we can also assume that it is more likely that the first (system) drive does not fail before the second (page file) drive fails. Especially if the second one is a worst brand and/or worst model.

We can also assume that lighting might strike twice and everythings gets fried :laugh:

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

Well, we can also assume that it is more likely that the first (system) drive does not fail before the second (page file) drive fails. Especially if the second one is a worst brand and/or worst model.

We can also assume that lighting might strike twice and everythings gets fried :laugh:

My point is simple. If your risk is downtime then you need to mitigate that risk...

 

You're shooting wild with no idea what your target is. This is a problem. You're going to make bad decisions as a result.

 

I would do some reading on how people mitigate downtime risk in computing. The most straightforward way is redundancy. It is for this reason that you'll typically see a server booting its OS from a RAID 1 volume.

[riahc3]

Hello,

My point is simple. If your risk is downtime then you need to mitigate that risk...

 

You're shooting wild with no idea what your target is. This is a problem. You're going to make bad decisions as a result.

 

I would do some reading on how people mitigate downtime risk in computing. The most straightforward way is redundancy. It is for this reason that you'll typically see a server booting its OS from a RAID 1 volume.

Your point is basically wasting money on one machine that is used by 3-4 people, where there is NO data stored at all, that can suffer downtime (because it isnt important) but we dont want ONE component to be wasted.

You are looking way past the thread's subject, LogicalApex. If this machine was more important, I agree RAID1ing it would be a good idea. Plus, the downtime, with just one drive, would mostly affect me because I would be the one that has to reinstall and everything.

I do have to make a image of the machine ASAP.

[neufuse Veteran]

Why would I limit the memory? This PC is only and exclusivally used as a terminal server for this program. It does absolutely nothing else. Limiting its RAM would be waste of components/money.

I want to point out that even with 32GB and paging like crazy, performance is still awesome.

BTW, it seems my company has had second thoughts about price to RAM ratio :laugh: We are gonna upgrade it to 40GB (4*8GB (32GB, quad) + 2*4GB (8GB, dual) )

I think you are missing the point of what limiting application RAM is for. I have a large SQL Server which has 128GB of RAM and houses TB's of data across Ten's of disks but we limit the SQL Server RAM software memory usage to 100 GB of RAM... You need RAM that is dedicated to the OS, once the OS runs of out free ram, you will have OS performance slow downs. This is just to guarantee that windows has enough free memory just to manage itself. This is a dedicated SQL Server, and we never have issues with speed or RAM because of thinking about limits of what can have what memory wise.. it's in no way limiting the server's usage.. it's not a waste of money because the OS still uses the RAM, that's why you have to calculate out what the OS needs vs what the software needs... which is also why high end software that does a lot of in memory caching and storage have limiters like this in place

[riahc3]

Hello,

I think you are missing the point of what limiting application RAM is for. I have a large SQL Server which has 128GB of RAM and houses TB's of data across Ten's of disks but we limit the SQL Server RAM software memory usage to 100 GB of RAM... You need RAM that is dedicated to the OS, once the OS runs of out free ram, you will have OS performance slow downs. This is just to guarantee that windows has enough free memory just to manage itself. This is a dedicated SQL Server, and we never have issues with speed or RAM because of thinking about limits of what can have what memory wise.. it's in no way limiting the server's usage.. it's not a waste of money because the OS still uses the RAM, that's why you have to calculate out what the OS needs vs what the software needs... which is also why high end software that does a lot of in memory caching and storage have limiters like this in place

Well, then I think you are missing the point of what this PC does!

You have a large SQL server with a lot of RAM and a lot of disks that have a lot of data

I have a small overclocked PC with (compared to that) a medium amount of RAM and one disk with no data (only Windows and that program I mentioned before)

Im sorry if I dont understand you but I just dont see how your scenario compares to mine. Maybe Im missing something.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Hello,

Your point is basically wasting money on one machine that is used by 3-4 people, where there is NO data stored at all, that can suffer downtime (because it isnt important) but we dont want ONE component to be wasted.

You are looking way past the thread's subject, LogicalApex. If this machine was more important, I agree RAID1ing it would be a good idea. Plus, the downtime, with just one drive, would mostly affect me because I would be the one that has to reinstall and everything.

I do have to make a image of the machine ASAP.

If this is the case then I fail to understand why you're adding another SSD just for a page file... It seems you're wasting components and money...

[Nas]

riahc3, you appear to be purposefully confusing various aspects of a system's configuration in hopes that we just agree to your original question.

 

It is also clear to me that you do not understand how the various hardware components of a Windows PC actually interact with each other; and you have yet to respond with the types of memory consumption configurations the SolidWorks software provides.

 

Bottom line: You need to *reconfigure* your existing system.  The general consensus is that you do not need another disk drive.

[neufuse Veteran]

Hello,

Well, then I think you are missing the point of what this PC does!

You have a large SQL server with a lot of RAM and a lot of disks that have a lot of data

I have a small overclocked PC with (compared to that) a medium amount of RAM and one disk with no data (only Windows and that program I mentioned before)

Im sorry if I dont understand you but I just dont see how your scenario compares to mine. Maybe Im missing something.

no, I'm not missing the point... the point is no mater what you need to dedicate some RAM to the Host OS... doesn't mater if its SQL Server or software like this. You are complaining about over paging, I'm trying to tell you how to stop it by managing your RAM, actual memory management not what windows does to dynamically manage it... if you force it to use a range of RAM it should never page out, because it will never use past that amount of RAM

[riahc3]

Hello,

If this is the case then I fail to understand why you're adding another SSD just for a page file... It seems you're wasting components and money...

Well, then the solution would be to add more RAM. We are doing this already (not to the full extent because of costs) but as a "cost cutter" a SSD also helps, right?

 

 

riahc3, you appear to be purposefully confusing various aspects of a system's configuration in hopes that we just agree to your original question.

 

It is also clear to me that you do not understand how the various hardware components of a Windows PC actually interact with each other; and you have yet to respond with the types of memory consumption configurations the SolidWorks software provides.

 

Bottom line: You need to *reconfigure* your existing system.  The general consensus is that you do not need another disk drive.

Your post has reminded me of a essay generator.

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

 

 

no, I'm not missing the point... the point is no mater what you need to dedicate some RAM to the Host OS... doesn't mater if its SQL Server or software like this. You are complaining about over paging, I'm trying to tell you how to stop it by managing your RAM, actual memory management not what windows does to dynamically manage it... if you force it to use a range of RAM it should never page out, because it will never use past that amount of RAM

OK, thats maybe what Im not understanding; Why would I say "limit yourself to 32GB"? Are you saying this to avoid the SSD paging at a cost of performance? Is that what you mean?

If so, I think 50 bucks vs limiting performance is worth it, personally. Let me see if I understood you correctly then Ill continue :)

BTW, thank you all for your advice and opinions. They help me a lot think about the problem :)

[Nas]

riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:riahc3, on 06 Mar 2014 - 13:32, said:

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

I actually read up on the entire 3 pages of responses before stating what I said.  Also, I'm also casually familiar with SolidWorks -- I've just never ran into the types of problem that you're describing.

 

There are parallels between SQL Server's memory management capabilities and those that (presumably exist) in SolidWorks.  Left unchecked (read: misconfigured) then the software would naturally consume as many resources as is made available to it via the OS.  Any program that hits the limits of its operating environment begins to error out or experience severe performance bottlenecks.  In the case of SolidWorks, it seems to defer those responsibilities to the OS -- hence how it consumes an ever-increasing amount of memory.  (The program does not know the difference between physical and virtual memory [page file].  It only knows that space is available.)

 

You can spend $5000 on more RAM, but SolidWorks will keep consuming as much memory as is available until it feels satisfied.

 

Your thoughts are either, "wow this program is hungry" or "wow I should really configure my SolidWorks environment properly."  I cannot speak for your business needs for SolidWorks over other CAD software, but I can speak to the idea that you must *really* dig into how SolidWorks is configured, review all of its configuration settings (both presented in the GUI and hidden in configuration files), and make sure you place a hard limit on how many resources the overall program is allowed to consume.  (You should also coordinate with SolidWorks directly if such a setting is too obscure... you may get a patch from them to fix the memory leak, or simply upgrade/downgrade to a version that operates properly within your given environment.)

 

Bottom line: Throwing more hardware at a software problem does not fix the software configuration problem.

[neufuse Veteran]

Hello,

Well, then the solution would be to add more RAM. We are doing this already (not to the full extent because of costs) but as a "cost cutter" a SSD also helps, right?

 

 

Your post has reminded me of a essay generator.

Basically you read nothing from the thread, did no research into the software in question and read no replies. Thats what it seems to be at least.

Like I (and others mention) the program grows beyond a 32GB RAM and into a 40GB+ page file. This means it is consuming 72GB (not of raw RAM because like mentioned the RAM unloads chunk to the page file) I need to "reconfigure" my system is pretty obvious; We start with adding more RAM but because it would explode the budget, we take a cost cutting route of adding a SSD.

 

 

OK, thats maybe what Im not understanding; Why would I say "limit yourself to 32GB"? Are you saying this to avoid the SSD paging at a cost of performance? Is that what you mean?

If so, I think 50 bucks vs limiting performance is worth it, personally. Let me see if I understood you correctly then Ill continue :)

BTW, thank you all for your advice and opinions. They help me a lot think about the problem :)

any time you have to page out, you hurt performance anyways... anything that isn't direct memory access is slower, even if it is to an SSD... the way to solve the problem is either get more RAM (which by best practice you should still limit the app's memory usage, even with 1TB of RAM you should still have a MAX usage for the program just so the OS doesn't start paging out itself)... or use the amount you have now, and put the limiter in place and stop paging out excessively

[riahc3]

Hello,

I actually read up on the entire 3 pages of responses before stating what I said.  Also, I'm also casually familiar with SolidWorks -- I've just never ran into the types of problem that you're describing.

 

There are parallels between SQL Server's memory management capabilities and those that (presumably exist) in SolidWorks.  Left unchecked (read: misconfigured) then the software would naturally consume as many resources as is made available to it via the OS.  Any program that hits the limits of its operating environment begins to error out or experience severe performance bottlenecks.  In the case of SolidWorks, it seems to defer those responsibilities to the OS -- hence how it consumes an ever-increasing amount of memory.  (The program does not know the difference between physical and virtual memory [page file].  It only knows that space is available.)

 

You can spend $5000 on more RAM, but SolidWorks will keep consuming as much memory as is available until it feels satisfied.

 

Your thoughts are either, "wow this program is hungry" or "wow I should really configure my SolidWorks environment properly."  I cannot speak for your business needs for SolidWorks over other CAD software, but I can speak to the idea that you must *really* dig into how SolidWorks is configured, review all of its configuration settings (both presented in the GUI and hidden in configuration files), and make sure you place a hard limit on how many resources the overall program is allowed to consume.  (You should also coordinate with SolidWorks directly if such a setting is too obscure... you may get a patch from them to fix the memory leak, or simply upgrade/downgrade to a version that operates properly within your given environment.)

 

Bottom line: Throwing more hardware at a software problem does not fix the software configuration problem.

Now this is a way better post! :)

I personally just do IT; I dont work with Solidworks and didnt even see it till about 6 months ago. When building this machine which was geared towards it, I read about softtweaks but since I didnt understand what my collegues need or want (and of course, I dont know or care what the program does), I went a hardware route. Maybe this would be a good time for software tweaks like you mentioned.

Well, since most of you are bent on limiting the program's RAM, I guess when we do this (upgrade the RAM) Ill go ahead and limit it. I gotta read on how to optimize it for Simulation AND also if it affects my collegues' needs.