Memory usage beyond 32Bit limitations of Windows OS

[JunkMail]

....your guide does nothing more than encourages people to cling to old technology for no reason and make inefficient use of their hardware.

You just want to make people buy and waste money, resources, polar bear, earth so be it, In your house only! keep your stink to yourself, don't let it come to me...

Prefetch doesn't pre-load data, it optimises the loading process of applications, and libraries to reduce startup time and application loading time, and it is also present in Vista and 7.

Whatever is present, is all features within 32bit addressing range (x86 is blind beyond 3.xx GB). Windows has nothing invisible going on there.

Normal ramdisks will obviously use the limited space but some special ram disks (as mentioned in my first post) use memory above 32Bit addressing limit (which is how all this really works) but what the hell, you do on knock yourself up in keyboard :p

[ToneKnee]

I agree, he/she should be reported to moderator upon one more foul, untested, flaming, mis-guiding statements. I was not hoping 64Bit users here with that kind of attitude (which is exactly why I've sub-title "64Bit users get out") This thread is for those 32Bit users who feel comfortable and still want to continue with their experienced OS.

The last place where I was replying to these foul people made the main solution get LOST in pages so, this thread was created with full caution to avoid such deliberate attempt to bury a fine solution :( now for the last time, This thread under no circumstances is against 64Bit!

Well, I can't stop dudes from posting around but hey... my first post is what matters ;)

Please report me, seriously, please.

Ya srsly :rolleyes:

I did mention 64 bit xp in my post but if you're not going to bother reading my entire post then don't bother replying :s

I know about Vista/7's better memory management but memory management in xp isn't bad enough to cause a problem

I'm assuming you have a better idea for getting around the 32 bit limitation without switching to a 64 bit platform? you do know there are still systems out there incapable of a 64 bit os?

DDR2 memory is incredibly cheap i could grab 4 2GB sticks and utilize 8GB of memory on this aging pc

If you find a better method of utilizing more memory then please do post it since this method is half parsed as you put it

also for the whole free memory is wasted memory crap i don't like the idea of windows loading data from my drive that i may not even use

you may not like having unused memory sitting in your system (which brings me to wonder why you even have that much memory if you yourself can't utilize it)

however i don't want windows loading from my drive data that i won't use its needless wear and tear i'd rather not put up with windows loading 4-24GB worth of data whenever i turn it on hard drives are fast enough to retrieve the data i need it may have some benefits but none of them seem to apply for me i prefer xp's prefetch

maybe when ssd's can sustain more read/writes before failing it will be worth considering but until then i'd rather keep disk activity at a minimal level

A better method? Use Windows 7 x64 and you'll see the added memory being utilised far more efficiently.

There are plenty of systems that don't support x64, but there are plenty of systems that do. And even when Windows 8 or 9 comes out, it's system requirements will most likely exceed those systems which it'll need a dual core system, which 95%+ are x86-64bit capable. Your argument is flawed at best.

Windows will always need a page file, if you set a static one, then fine, but, if you exceed that limit, windows might force itself to increase the usage, but! If you trap the page file in a small space (people recommend having the page file set between 1.5 times to 3 times the size of your RAM), then your system will most likely crash.

[DDStriker]

Prefetch doesn't pre-load data, it optimises the loading process of applications, and libraries to reduce startup time and application loading time, and it is also present in Vista and 7.

yes i'm aware of that i was referring to vista/7's superfetch though which does pre-load data but i suppose i could disable that so its not a major issue i just prefer xp over vista/7 hopefully i'll get use to them for when i buy my new system though :D

still this isn't a bad idea for my 32 bit processor systems mainly as a proof of concept and just something to play around with its not the ideal solution to be running all the time but the possibility is there with older hardware (pentium 4)

[x-byte]

It's the virtual address space of each process that is divided into 2GB application and 2GB kernel, it isn't system wide. Each process has 2GB of kernel resources mapped into its address space for performance reasons. The 3GB switch does change this to 3/1GB, but it's a legacy option from a long time ago and limiting the kernel space to 1GB isn't practical on modern machines. Manual mapping of pages is of course possible for any process, so that technically a process can use any amount of available memory, not just 2 or 3GB.

No it can't because of the 32 bit limit. Even with PAE the limit is there, it's just worked around with memory tables that is 2GB each.?

However, adding more than 4GB of physical memory to a server still doesn't change the fact that it's a 32-bit processor accessing a 32-bit memory space. Even when more than 4GB of memory is present, each process still has the normal 2GB virtual address space, and the kernel address space is still 2GB, just as on a normal non-PAE system.

However, systems booted /PAE can support up to 64GB physical memory. A 32-bit process can "use" large amounts of memory via AWE (address windowing extension) functions. This means that they must map views of the physical memory they allocate into their 2GB virtual address space. Essentially, they can only use 2GB of memory at a time.

Link

[hdood]

Windows will always need a page file, if you set a static one, then fine, but, if you exceed that limit, windows might force itself to increase the usage, but! If you trap the page file in a small space (people recommend having the page file set between 1.5 times to 3 times the size of your RAM), then your system will most likely crash.

You should be posting in the Area 51 forum.

There is no magic hidden page file. I think this myth stems from the fact that you always saw "page file use" in XP's task manager, when that was actually just mislabeled (it really shows the combination of physical and virtual memory in use). I really have no idea where else it could come from.

Also, if you set the page file to a fixed size, Windows will not go behind your back and increase it. It will simply run out of memory.

[Subject Delta]

yes i'm aware of that i was referring to vista/7's superfetch though which does pre-load data but i suppose i could disable that so its not a major issue i just prefer xp over vista/7 hopefully i'll get use to them for when i buy my new system though :D

still this isn't a bad idea for my 32 bit processor systems mainly as a proof of concept and just something to play around with its not the ideal solution to be running all the time but the possibility is there with older hardware (pentium 4)

Most systems that old don't even have chipsets that support more than 4GB of ram anyway, so you'd only be likely to get about 768 MB of memory for your ramdrive

[ToneKnee]

Also, with the 3GB switch, there was tests with games etc a couple of years ago and found out that games crash when they used memory above 2GB. It's not recommended, only software which has been signed to be stable enough to use that feature can use it. If you force an application to do it (which you can), then it'll crash.

[DDStriker]

Please report me, seriously, please.

no need to report him hes providing useful information and its not just flamebait

A better method? Use Windows 7 x64 and you'll see the added memory being utilised far more efficiently.

There are plenty of systems that don't support x64, but there are plenty of systems that do. And even when Windows 8 or 9 comes out, it's system requirements will most likely exceed those systems which it'll need a dual core system, which 95%+ are x86-64bit capable. Your argument is flawed at best.

Windows will always need a page file, if you set a static one, then fine, but, if you exceed that limit, windows might force itself to increase the usage, but! If you trap the page file in a small space (people recommend having the page file set between 1.5 times to 3 times the size of your RAM), then your system will most likely crash.

Considering its not possible i wouldn't consider it a better method this is the best method given the situation (32 bit hardware limitation unable to support a 64 bit OS)

For the systems that don't support x64 then this method exists this is a valid argument it may not agree with you but it is certainly not flawed

Windows page file does not need to be restricted by a single drive (ram disk) it can be a combination of a ramdisk + harddisk just need to hope it uses the ramdisk first if not then yes in that case its useless

as for hardware that can support 64 bit it comes down to peoples preference and there are still a lot of people who prefer 32bit xp over windows vista/7 why do you consider them an idiot if they don't wish to use the new operating system right away or any time soon?

[ToneKnee]

Most systems that old don't even have chipsets that support more than 4GB of ram anyway, so you'd only be likely to get about 768 MB of memory for your ramdrive

Which again is far too small for a page file.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

DO NOT do what this post is suggesting!

The 32-bit client versions of Windows specifically do NOT support (at the NT kernel API level) the necessary functionality to properly enable a RAM disk that uses PAE-mapped addresses. By chance it happens to work "most of the time" but relying on this is a VERY BAD IDEA.

If you have 4GB of RAM, go 64-bit.

[hdood]

No it can't because of the 32 bit limit. Even with PAE the limit is there, it's just worked around with memory tables that is 2GB each.

No, it's the virtual address space that is "2GB". What this actually means is that it can hold 2^31 numbers, and each one of these numbers point to a resource. If they're all pointing to memory, you can only hold references to 2GB of memory by default. However, you can also manually allocate a certain number of pages of memory, and then map them in and out of your virtual address space, thus giving you access to any amount of physical memory you want. This is a very obscure feature that is rarely used, although it was used for certain server applications back in the Windows 2000 era.

[ToneKnee]

no need to report him hes providing useful information and its not just flamebait

Considering its not possible i wouldn't consider it a better method this is the best method given the situation (32 bit hardware limitation unable to support a 64 bit OS)

For the systems that don't support x64 then this method exists this is a valid argument it may not agree with you but it is certainly not flawed

Windows page file does not need to be restricted by a single drive (ram disk) it can be a combination of a ramdisk + harddisk just need to hope it uses the ramdisk first if not then yes in that case its useless

as for hardware that can support 64 bit it comes down to peoples preference and there are still a lot of people who prefer 32bit xp over windows vista/7 why do you consider them an idiot if they don't wish to use the new operating system right away or any time soon?

If people want to use Windows XP, that's completely fine, the same argument was played when Windows XP was first released when Windows 98 was better for games and 2000 was better for stability. Those users weren't idiots, but people became aware that XP was better in time.

I'm saying people are idiots if they buy 8GB's of RAM and only use a 32bit operating system. Even Linux has this problem.

If you had a RAMdisk and hard disk, both with page files, then it's defeating the point since Windows will use both or just one of them. Either way, if someone wants to use more than 4GB of RAM, then go with x64, and there is plenty of systems that support that jump.

Page file was designed for hard drives in case of a memory problem, I really hope you understand what I'm saying here.

[Subject Delta]

as for hardware that can support 64 bit it comes down to peoples preference and there are still a lot of people who prefer 32bit xp over windows vista/7 why do you consider them an idiot if they don't wish to use the new operating system right away or any time soon?

Whats the point in investing in the latest and greatest technology, only to run either old software (in the case of XP anyway), or software that doesn't fully take advantage of your hardware's capability due to stubbornness and refusal to adapt. If people really are that dead set against Vista or 7 there is a 64 bit version of XP, but Vista and 7 will take advantage of modern hardware far better.

[ToneKnee]

DO NOT do what this post is suggesting!

The 32-bit client versions of Windows specifically do NOT support (at the NT kernel API level) the necessary functionality to properly enable a RAM disk that uses PAE-mapped addresses. By chance it happens to work "most of the time" but relying on this is a VERY BAD IDEA.

If you have 4GB of RAM, go 64-bit.

Brandon Live, Thank you for replying in this thread, but could please explain to JunkMail and the others why it's a bad idea putting a page file into the memory please?

[Joe User]

I've done ramdisks on 32bit systems, so I'll let you know my results. (I'm assuming you're all talking about workstations and not running dedicated servers)

Using a RAMDisk for the swapfile is etremely inefficient. That being said, it will work, but you will not see any real-world improvements in most situations.

Under 4GB, don't do it. Windows caching does a better job then you can ever hope to do.

4GB system, if you're trying to reclaim that lost half GB, don't bother, the overhead of running the RAMDisk app and putting a small pagefile into it will degrade performance. However, if you want to put your IE or Firefox temp files into it, or something similar, then yes, that's not a horrible idea.

5GB+ system, you will be able to run this, however, your RAMDisk will spend a good amount of time swapping memory around in the PAE buffering system. Benchmarks may look pretty good, but you'll find out that real-world apps are not benchmarks. Also, your drivers should all be PAE aware for this to work properly, and I've noticed almost all drivers that are PAE aware are available in x64. So, this will actually work, but you will have to tune things yourself to make sure your pagefile doesn't go over the limit of the ramdisk. Once it does, you're either going to have to swap to disk or your app will go OOM. If you are willing to put up with this, then by all means, enjoy.

To summarize, 5+GB users, bite the bullet and go x64 unless you have drivers that are PAE aware and yet do not have x64 support. WOW64 is extremely efficient at running x86 apps because it just passes the app to the processor in x86 mode. (yes, I'm dumbing down the explanation here). Everyone else (up to 4GB), don't bother with the RAMDisk/swapfile, use it for something else if you really want to.

[JunkMail]

no need to report him hes providing useful information and its not just flamebait

I'm too lazy to do that (unless ofcourse I see nasty words here, that will be the end of it

Which again is far too small for a page file.

For 4GB it maybe small but for 5 or 6 or 8GBs, it gives softwares what it wants (more memory)

[ManMountain]

With PAE mode comes possible system instability thanks to PAE-unaware device drivers attempting to directly alter a systems page table entry. PAE-unaware device drivers expect a 32-bit page table but find a 64-bit page table in PAE mode. Boom! :)

[ToneKnee]

I'm too lazy to do that (unless ofcourse I see nasty words here, that will be the end of it

For 4GB it maybe small but for 5 or 6 or 8GBs, it gives softwares what it wants (more memory)

But no it doesn't, you can't seem to grasp what people are saying. Go with x64, get an x64 application, and you'll see real benefits, not to mention the extra CPU instructions that can be used. x64 is not just about memory y'know.

[x-byte]

No, it's the virtual address space that is "2GB". What this actually means is that it can hold 2^31 numbers, and each one of these numbers point to a resource. If they're all pointing to memory, you can only hold references to 2GB of memory by default. However, you can also manually allocate a certain number of pages of memory, and then map them in and out of your virtual address space, thus giving you access to any amount of physical memory you want. This is a very obscure feature that is rarely used, although it was used for certain server applications back in the Windows 2000 era.

Yes, which is what I'm saying. The problem is that this can only be accessed 2GB at a time. Which creates a bottle neck. I don't think you get what the others here are saying. You don't give any technical info about why this should work. Just your understanding of it.

[hdood]

Brandon Live, Thank you for replying in this thread, but could please explain to JunkMail and the others why it's a bad idea putting a page file into the memory please?

Here comes the supposed authority figure that all have to bow down before..? No. It's hardly a surprise that a Microsoft employee would recommend against using a piece of software that gains access to resources in a completely unsupported manner (a hack).

[JunkMail]

With PAE mode comes possible system instability thanks to PAE-unaware device drivers attempting to directly alter a systems page table entry. PAE-unaware device drivers expect a 32-bit page table but find a 64-bit page table in PAE mode. Boom! :)

Thats why Windows may have disabled extending memory through it, but while they didn't put limit on other softwares that they can't use PAE extension solution. Those PAE-unaware devices won't get knocks on their doors by RamDisk, for them limit still exist.

But no it doesn't, you can't seem to grasp what people are saying. Go with x64, get an x64 application, and you'll see real benefits, not to mention the extra CPU instructions that can be used. x64 is not just about memory y'know.

Obviously you think I'm against 64Bit (which I'm not). You must have had a few before posting this cauz I've been saying this like? how many times? I AM NOT AGAINST. Anyways, those who want the solution must have taken the solution regardless of your thoughts towards me

[hdood]

Yes, which is what I'm saying. The problem is that this can only be accessed 2GB at a time. Which creates a bottle neck.

Sorry, I missed what your actual point was. Yes, it involves extra work that you wouldn't have if you were running a 64-bit program on a 64-bit OS. That's why I say it's a legacy thing that isn't very relevant today when high performance software should be running on 64-bit.

It's not really related to the other "discussion" though.

[ToneKnee]

Here comes the supposed authority figure that all have to bow down before..? No. It's hardly a surprise that a Microsoft employee would recommend against using a piece of software that gains access to resources in a completely unsupported manner (a hack).

Brandon Live has a far better knowledge than me, you and all the people in the thread combined when it comes to Windows. I believe that whatever he says, is the best method, after all, who's knows Windows better than an actual Microsoft software engineer?

[DDStriker]

If people want to use Windows XP, that's completely fine, the same argument was played when Windows XP was first released when Windows 98 was better for games and 2000 was better for stability. Those users weren't idiots, but people became aware that XP was better in time.

I didn't go straight to xp either (prior to sp1 it crashed more then millenium :p)

I'm saying people are idiots if they buy 8GB's of RAM and only use a 32bit operating system. Even Linux has this problem.

This is an issue to me because when i get my new system built i plan to use 32bit xp for a while until i can become familiar with vista/7 64bit and ensure everything is going to work correctly (i'll be doing my work on this pc) i do plan to upgrade but i need to spend more time on it make sure nothing is going to die when i need it :p

If you had a RAMdisk and hard disk, both with page files, then it's defeating the point since Windows will use both or just one of them. Either way, if someone wants to use more than 4GB of RAM, then go with x64, and there is plenty of systems that support that jump.

Page file was designed for hard drives in case of a memory problem, I really hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Figured as much it would halve the amount of data written to the disk though giving some benefit but still not worth the effort (not to mention its rather unstable the ramdisk software actually thinks i have 18,432MB of main memory installed in the system) :D

I understand completely i just got a bit defensive with the whole attacking the idea but i need to realize my system is ancient and 64 bit is becoming a lot more common then 32 bit systems

Whats the point in investing in the latest and greatest technology, only to run either old software (in the case of XP anyway), or software that doesn't fully take advantage of your hardware's capability due to stubbornness and refusal to adapt. If people really are that dead set against Vista or 7 there is a 64 bit version of XP, but Vista and 7 will take advantage of modern hardware far better.

i kind of wish they just upgraded the system but kept the interface similar or atleast give the user to have the same interface i'm tired of having to re-learn everything everytime they release a new os i've played with vista a bit and the needless amount of categories (control panel) makes it rather time consuming to find the setting you are after i'll get the hang of it eventually but it just seems pointless

that doesn't make me stubborn nor refusing to adapt and assuming that on everyone is just wrong most people are comfortable with their system and it works for them so theres no real reason to adapt unless they get a new system and really want to use more then 3GB of memory which is sad microsoft didn't keep updating xp 64 bit to solve compatability issues (but i suppose they wanted to sell vista)

[hdood]

Brandon Live has a far better knowledge than me, you and all the people in the thread combined when it comes to Windows. I believe that whatever he says, is the best method, after all, who's knows Windows better than an actual Microsoft software engineer?

Well, first of all, that is a fallacy. Working on part of Windows in no way makes you an expert on the whole OS. Second, all he said was "don't use hacks that rely on anything undocumented." Fine, I know it really annoys Microsoft that programs do (especially when they make changes to the OS which then end up introducing random instability because third-party software was doing something naughty), but this is still something that actually works, and is what Microsoft gets for not having a legitimate way for users to do what they want.