 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi,
I have a couple of observations about memory managment on my system I would
like to get your opinions about.
I have a file I rendered just now that has 100k objects and according to
Pov's stats used a peak memory of 102 megs. I have 128 megs of ram installed
on my system using two 64 meg 72 pin EDO ram simms in the first bank only.
My system architecture is supposed to be able to access up to a maximum of
128 megs so I have it max'd out.
I also have a windows 98 managed swap file specified in the control panel.
System resources are 97% free according to several memory reporting utilities.
That leaves over 120 megs of unused free ram memory.
After rendering the aforementioned scene I checked the size of my HD swap file
and it was nearly 135 megs in size. It's usual size under windows management is
20 megs until a program writes to it.
What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
Anybody ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
'T was on Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:18:44 -0800,
that Ken wrote:
> What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
> swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
> use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
> over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
Start up the system monitor and see how much memory is used at the
moment. You'd be surprised to see how much memory is already hogged up at
startup...
It's a Windows thing. Don't try to understand it... :|
Phoenix
--
eag### [at] telekabel nl http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV-Ray VFAQ: http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phoenix wrote:
>
> 'T was on Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:18:44 -0800,
> that Ken wrote:
> > What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
> > swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
> > use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
> > over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
>
> Start up the system monitor and see how much memory is used at the
> moment. You'd be surprised to see how much memory is already hogged up at
> startup...
>
> It's a Windows thing. Don't try to understand it... :|
>
> Phoenix
While I appreciate your comments I was hoping to get just a little
bit more than that's just the way things are. Are there alternatives
to the way I have my system set up so as to optimize the performance
or is windows and the program conspiring against me.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phoenix schrieb in Nachricht ...
>It's a Windows thing. Don't try to understand it... :|
Yep, that says it all. Windows (whether 95, 98 or NT) is a memory hog. No
matter what application you start, no matter how much free RAM (you think)
you have, it's never enough. Windows seems to be swapping just for the sake
of it, IMHO.
--
Rudy Velthuis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
'T was on Fri, 12 Feb 1999 08:01:50 -0800,
that Ken wrote:
> While I appreciate your comments I was hoping to get just a little
> bit more than that's just the way things are. Are there alternatives
> to the way I have my system set up so as to optimize the performance
> or is windows and the program conspiring against me.
As Rudy said, Windows is a huge memory hogger and I have yet to find a
way to tell it otherwise...
The best thing you can do is restart Windows and run nothing but POV...
Phoenix
--
eag### [at] telekabelnl http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The POV-Ray VFAQ: http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nowadays I use a little shell-switch program, with povray as shell,
gives me a bit more priority to pov, as well as reduced memory useage..
As for windows, I've noticed that it has a tendency to want as much swap
as the memory it uses, since it seldom bothers to release memory in the
swap, but simply allocates more. don't blame me for any errors in my
reasoning, blame vapour-soft.
//Spider
Phoenix wrote:
>
> 'T was on Fri, 12 Feb 1999 02:18:44 -0800,
> that Ken wrote:
> > What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
> > swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
> > use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
> > over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
>
> Start up the system monitor and see how much memory is used at the
> moment. You'd be surprised to see how much memory is already hogged up at
> startup...
>
> It's a Windows thing. Don't try to understand it... :|
>
> Phoenix
>
> --
> eag### [at] telekabelnl http://users.telekabel.nl/eagle
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The POV-Ray VFAQ: http://iki.fi/warp/povVFAQ.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Have you tried (risked, more like) a permanent swap file of a very
minimum size by manually setting the Virtual Memory? Maybe something
around that 20 Megabytes you mention that Windows is normally using, so
that POV-Ray (or is it Windows) is forced into RAM only.
Think I'll risk--- er, *try* that just to check for myself.
Ken wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a couple of observations about memory managment on my system I would
> like to get your opinions about.
>
> I have a file I rendered just now that has 100k objects and according to
> Pov's stats used a peak memory of 102 megs. I have 128 megs of ram installed
> on my system using two 64 meg 72 pin EDO ram simms in the first bank only.
> My system architecture is supposed to be able to access up to a maximum of
> 128 megs so I have it max'd out.
>
> I also have a windows 98 managed swap file specified in the control panel.
> System resources are 97% free according to several memory reporting utilities.
> That leaves over 120 megs of unused free ram memory.
>
> After rendering the aforementioned scene I checked the size of my HD swap file
> and it was nearly 135 megs in size. It's usual size under windows management is
> 20 megs until a program writes to it.
>
> What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
> swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
> use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
> over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
>
> Anybody ?
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Problem with that is that if you run out of both, the program is forced
to crash.
What I did on NT is set up a good permanent swap space by setting the
min to about 200 on two drives. It takes up space all the time, but I
find it good to gaurentee that it will always be there. If you set it
too low, you could end up using up all the space on your hard drive
without thinking about it and leave nothing for programs to deal with
when RAM runs out.
Then I set a real big space for the max. Went around 400 on one drive
and 1 gig on another. As long as I don't fill up either drive I've got
plenty of space to deal with.
My computer doesn't really use virtual memory anymore when using POV
since I upgraded to 256 megs of RAM. Some programs prefer to use disk
space to store things, like the temp directory, since if the program
crashes the file isn't destroyed, so it's good to have the swap space
for that.
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Have you tried (risked, more like) a permanent swap file of a very
> minimum size by manually setting the Virtual Memory? Maybe something
> around that 20 Megabytes you mention that Windows is normally using, so
> that POV-Ray (or is it Windows) is forced into RAM only.
> Think I'll risk--- er, *try* that just to check for myself.
>
> Ken wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a couple of observations about memory managment on my system I would
> > like to get your opinions about.
> >
> > I have a file I rendered just now that has 100k objects and according to
> > Pov's stats used a peak memory of 102 megs. I have 128 megs of ram installed
> > on my system using two 64 meg 72 pin EDO ram simms in the first bank only.
> > My system architecture is supposed to be able to access up to a maximum of
> > 128 megs so I have it max'd out.
> >
> > I also have a windows 98 managed swap file specified in the control panel.
> > System resources are 97% free according to several memory reporting utilities.
> > That leaves over 120 megs of unused free ram memory.
> >
> > After rendering the aforementioned scene I checked the size of my HD swap file
> > and it was nearly 135 megs in size. It's usual size under windows management is
> > 20 megs until a program writes to it.
> >
> > What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why would my
> > swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to cover the
> > use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram memory
> > over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that environment.
> >
> > Anybody ?
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
> >
> > mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/POVring.htm
> mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?PoV
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote in message <36C4E322.CE5B2027@aol.com>...
>Problem with that is that if you run out of both, the program is forced
>to crash.
More likely, the OS will crash before the program.
99% of memory allocations assume success and continue to run
as if they did. The first time the OS tries a malloc (probably to swap
a page back in), its all over.
>What I did on NT is set up a good permanent swap space by setting the
>min to about 200 on two drives. It takes up space all the time, but I
>find it good to gaurentee that it will always be there. If you set it
>too low, you could end up using up all the space on your hard drive
>without thinking about it and leave nothing for programs to deal with
>when RAM runs out.
The *best* thing you can do is to set up a fixed size swap on your
non-Windows
drive. And make it contiguous. So what i do when i set up a new NT box is
this:
2 drives C:Fat D:NTFS (Fat is 10% faster then NTFS, but less secure)
Barely get the box running on C:
Format D:
Set D: swap to 800MB Fixed length partition (min and max equals 800MB.
Set C: swap to 20MB (the min for BSOD stats, although i can't make that
work)
Continue with setup.
If you don't set up the fixed size swap immediately, then you lose its
contiguous benefit
and might go with the variable size one and listen to the thrashing.
If possible, put your swap on a different disk drive than
C:\WINDOZE\SYSTEM32.
M$OSes spend a lot of time reading DLLs just so they can be paged out.
[ One of the reasons Linux is faster than NT is that Linux supports proper
swap partitions
which are *so* much faster than going all the way through the file system
to read
pages. ]
>> > What I don't understand is with 128 megs of ram memory on board why
would my
>> > swap file ever grow so large when the system memory is sufficient to
cover the
>> > use of the programs being run ? I know the speed increase of using ram
memory
>> > over swap file memory is significant and would prefer to run in that
environment.
>> >
>> > Anybody ?
I second the "just because".
I have 512MB on NT Workstation 4.0SP4. After booting up, and logging in, i
am using
70MB of swap and 140MB RAM. I run minimal services, (no Office97 fastfind,
no http server).
NT task manager is inconclusive about what is using that memory.
_,--"
`-._ ________-_______ "----
_----'--'--------------------------------'--'----_
//_| | \ Dick Balaska / | | _\\
(_____|_|__= Waterbury CT USA =__|_|_____)
_\_____=___ http://www.buckosoft.com/ ___=_____/_
\/-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-`------'-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-\/
schizophrenic$ export prompt="$p$g> "
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a couple of observations about memory managment on my system I would
> like to get your opinions about.
>
> I have a file I rendered just now that has 100k objects and according to
> Pov's stats used a peak memory of 102 megs. I have 128 megs of ram installed
> on my system using two 64 meg 72 pin EDO ram simms in the first bank only.
> My system architecture is supposed to be able to access up to a maximum of
> 128 megs so I have it max'd out.
>
> I also have a windows 98 managed swap file specified in the control panel.
> System resources are 97% free according to several memory reporting utilities.
> That leaves over 120 megs of unused free ram memory.
>
One minor point. The 'system resources' is not a measure of your total memory, but
only that tiny special range of memory that Windows needs for each loaded program,
etc. Also, the % measurement you get used to be (3.1 days) a true % of the system
resources, but in 95 and later it is a % of what was free _after_ Windows gobbled up
all it's initial resources. You might have 100 MB of RAM free, but if you run out of
system resources, you can't even launch another program.
You might want to add the 'System Monitor' so that you can watch true memory use.
One other minor issue is that Windows tends to want to use whatever memory you have.
If you have a lot, it will go ahead and use it for it's own purposes and then swap
it's stuff out as programs are used.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
