Disable/resize Windows Vista disk cache to increase free RAM
I'd like to decrease my cache size, because I have a slow disk and run a swap-less system (it's pretty snappy that way). I have x86 Vista and 3 GB RAM. The problem is that Windows eats about 1 GB RAM for disk cache (shown in Task Manager under Physical Memory -> Cached), that leaves only 2 GB for applications. A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used. But there's still 1 GB sitting in the cache!
I've tried AnalogX Cache Booster, but it didn't do anything, memory usage stays the same, warning pop ups are at the same levels.
windows-vista memory cache
|
show 2 more comments
I'd like to decrease my cache size, because I have a slow disk and run a swap-less system (it's pretty snappy that way). I have x86 Vista and 3 GB RAM. The problem is that Windows eats about 1 GB RAM for disk cache (shown in Task Manager under Physical Memory -> Cached), that leaves only 2 GB for applications. A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used. But there's still 1 GB sitting in the cache!
I've tried AnalogX Cache Booster, but it didn't do anything, memory usage stays the same, warning pop ups are at the same levels.
windows-vista memory cache
3
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
2
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
1
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
1
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45
|
show 2 more comments
I'd like to decrease my cache size, because I have a slow disk and run a swap-less system (it's pretty snappy that way). I have x86 Vista and 3 GB RAM. The problem is that Windows eats about 1 GB RAM for disk cache (shown in Task Manager under Physical Memory -> Cached), that leaves only 2 GB for applications. A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used. But there's still 1 GB sitting in the cache!
I've tried AnalogX Cache Booster, but it didn't do anything, memory usage stays the same, warning pop ups are at the same levels.
windows-vista memory cache
I'd like to decrease my cache size, because I have a slow disk and run a swap-less system (it's pretty snappy that way). I have x86 Vista and 3 GB RAM. The problem is that Windows eats about 1 GB RAM for disk cache (shown in Task Manager under Physical Memory -> Cached), that leaves only 2 GB for applications. A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used. But there's still 1 GB sitting in the cache!
I've tried AnalogX Cache Booster, but it didn't do anything, memory usage stays the same, warning pop ups are at the same levels.
windows-vista memory cache
windows-vista memory cache
asked Oct 8 '10 at 11:53
Axarydax
60241636
60241636
3
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
2
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
1
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
1
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45
|
show 2 more comments
3
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
2
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
1
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
1
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45
3
3
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
2
2
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
1
1
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
1
1
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I have ... a swap-less system
I used to think the same way. I've since learned that, in MS Windows, this is a bad idea and can actually hurt performance.
Windows thinks of RAM more as an optimization layer over the hard disk. It doesn't want to wait until you have to swap RAM out before paging/swapping it to disk. Instead, Windows wants anything you put in RAM to already be paged/swapped.
This way, when Windows needs the RAM for something else, it can just use it. This strategy works because it places the (slow) disk writes at the points when your computer is less stressed, at the expense of slightly slower application loads and maybe paging some things it doesn't need to, rather than at the point when your computer is already more stressed and running low on RAM.
Of course, by removing the paging file completely you might tend to think that you get the best of both worlds. However, there's loads of code in Windows that is optimized assuming the performance model I just described. You're really better off making sure you have at least as much swap space as you do RAM.
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
add a comment |
By default, Vista (and later) x86 will only allow 2 GB of virtual memory for each process. If one application needs more, for example 3GB, you can increase this by :
bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072
However this will only work for executables that were linked with the "large address aware" flag. Processes running other exe's will still be limited to 2 GB.
Real RAM is allocated as required for both applications and the system.
As this doesn't seem to be your problem, then to optimize the usage of memory one can first Disable SuperFetch on Windows Vista :
The SuperFetch service in Windows
Vista preloads your system’s memory
with the applications that you use
most often. This makes launching of
those applications much faster, but it
might be an unwanted behavior for
system tweakers or gamers.
Secondly, to control the disk cache size, AnalogX CacheBooster is a free tool that is said able to tweak the hard disk cache (never tried it myself), but I'm not sure that it will help, in view of the info below.
As described in Windows Vista Memory Tweak Guide, the disk cache parameters reside in the registry:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSessionManagerMemory Management
Some important parameters are :
DisablePagingExecutive controls how inactive kernel-mode drivers and system code can be released from RAM and paged to the Page File. Unfortunately, you don't have a page file so system code never gets swapped out.
LargeSystemCache controls the size of the file system cache as follows:
- 0 (Default) a standard sized file system cache is allocated (less than 10MB RAM)
- 1 enables the use of a large file system cache (up to total RAM amount minus 4MB!)
If this value is zero in your case, then the disk cache is already as small as it can get. If the performance you get is not satisfying, then you must invest in hardware : either more RAM or a faster hard disk. Increasing RAM from 3GB to 4GB will only get you an increase of (1GB - video-memory), unless you also pass to a 64-bit version of Windows.
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
add a comment |
A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used.
This popup has nothing to do with RAM, and nothing to do with Windows' cache. It means you are running out of commit limit. This is a limit on how much private virtual address space your processes can allocate.
There are three ways to increase your commit limit: 1) run less stuff or smaller stuff at one time; 2) increase RAM; 3) increase your pagefile size. This is because the commit limit is simply the size of RAM plus the current size of the pagefile.
If you would enable your pagefile the way the OS designers intended you wouldn't be seeing these messages and your programs wouldn't be crashing.
And despite what CausingUnderflowsEverywhere said in their comment, sometimes you need a pagefile to allow programs to allocate the virtual memory they need, even though there is plenty of available RAM, and even though the pagefile might not actually be used. For why, see my answers here and enter link description here here.
n.b.: Most of the "cached" RAM reported by Task Manager is still "Available"; the SuperFetch cache does not really "use" RAM. The "cache" is not what's causing your problem. Lack of a pagefile is.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f197362%2fdisable-resize-windows-vista-disk-cache-to-increase-free-ram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I have ... a swap-less system
I used to think the same way. I've since learned that, in MS Windows, this is a bad idea and can actually hurt performance.
Windows thinks of RAM more as an optimization layer over the hard disk. It doesn't want to wait until you have to swap RAM out before paging/swapping it to disk. Instead, Windows wants anything you put in RAM to already be paged/swapped.
This way, when Windows needs the RAM for something else, it can just use it. This strategy works because it places the (slow) disk writes at the points when your computer is less stressed, at the expense of slightly slower application loads and maybe paging some things it doesn't need to, rather than at the point when your computer is already more stressed and running low on RAM.
Of course, by removing the paging file completely you might tend to think that you get the best of both worlds. However, there's loads of code in Windows that is optimized assuming the performance model I just described. You're really better off making sure you have at least as much swap space as you do RAM.
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
add a comment |
I have ... a swap-less system
I used to think the same way. I've since learned that, in MS Windows, this is a bad idea and can actually hurt performance.
Windows thinks of RAM more as an optimization layer over the hard disk. It doesn't want to wait until you have to swap RAM out before paging/swapping it to disk. Instead, Windows wants anything you put in RAM to already be paged/swapped.
This way, when Windows needs the RAM for something else, it can just use it. This strategy works because it places the (slow) disk writes at the points when your computer is less stressed, at the expense of slightly slower application loads and maybe paging some things it doesn't need to, rather than at the point when your computer is already more stressed and running low on RAM.
Of course, by removing the paging file completely you might tend to think that you get the best of both worlds. However, there's loads of code in Windows that is optimized assuming the performance model I just described. You're really better off making sure you have at least as much swap space as you do RAM.
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
add a comment |
I have ... a swap-less system
I used to think the same way. I've since learned that, in MS Windows, this is a bad idea and can actually hurt performance.
Windows thinks of RAM more as an optimization layer over the hard disk. It doesn't want to wait until you have to swap RAM out before paging/swapping it to disk. Instead, Windows wants anything you put in RAM to already be paged/swapped.
This way, when Windows needs the RAM for something else, it can just use it. This strategy works because it places the (slow) disk writes at the points when your computer is less stressed, at the expense of slightly slower application loads and maybe paging some things it doesn't need to, rather than at the point when your computer is already more stressed and running low on RAM.
Of course, by removing the paging file completely you might tend to think that you get the best of both worlds. However, there's loads of code in Windows that is optimized assuming the performance model I just described. You're really better off making sure you have at least as much swap space as you do RAM.
I have ... a swap-less system
I used to think the same way. I've since learned that, in MS Windows, this is a bad idea and can actually hurt performance.
Windows thinks of RAM more as an optimization layer over the hard disk. It doesn't want to wait until you have to swap RAM out before paging/swapping it to disk. Instead, Windows wants anything you put in RAM to already be paged/swapped.
This way, when Windows needs the RAM for something else, it can just use it. This strategy works because it places the (slow) disk writes at the points when your computer is less stressed, at the expense of slightly slower application loads and maybe paging some things it doesn't need to, rather than at the point when your computer is already more stressed and running low on RAM.
Of course, by removing the paging file completely you might tend to think that you get the best of both worlds. However, there's loads of code in Windows that is optimized assuming the performance model I just described. You're really better off making sure you have at least as much swap space as you do RAM.
answered Oct 8 '10 at 17:21
Joel Coehoorn
24.2k971119
24.2k971119
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
add a comment |
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
The system is a lot less responsive when using swap file. I have a good laptop, but with hellishly hard disk, and when I have multiple instances of Visual Studio, browser with lot of tabs, VM or two, database management studio, things tend to swap a lot. And switching apps becomes a long wait. Without swap files, everything's instant. That's a win for me.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:03
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
Now you discover a limitation of a swap-less system. If you have multiple Visual Studio instances and several browser tabs, you need more RAM than you have.
– Joel Coehoorn
Oct 8 '10 at 19:26
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
that's why I'm getting an 8 GB RAM system in a while. I just need to survive on this machine for a while :-)
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:37
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
Unfortunately this answer is not very useful anymore at this date (if you're on tablet well maybe you want a small one but it'll be bad for the ssd), I have 16GB of RAM for a very low price. Have been using the PC for a year and not a single time have I ran out. There is just no reason to bottleneck your hard disk with a pagefile anymore.
– CausingUnderflowsEverywhere
Jul 20 '16 at 11:28
add a comment |
By default, Vista (and later) x86 will only allow 2 GB of virtual memory for each process. If one application needs more, for example 3GB, you can increase this by :
bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072
However this will only work for executables that were linked with the "large address aware" flag. Processes running other exe's will still be limited to 2 GB.
Real RAM is allocated as required for both applications and the system.
As this doesn't seem to be your problem, then to optimize the usage of memory one can first Disable SuperFetch on Windows Vista :
The SuperFetch service in Windows
Vista preloads your system’s memory
with the applications that you use
most often. This makes launching of
those applications much faster, but it
might be an unwanted behavior for
system tweakers or gamers.
Secondly, to control the disk cache size, AnalogX CacheBooster is a free tool that is said able to tweak the hard disk cache (never tried it myself), but I'm not sure that it will help, in view of the info below.
As described in Windows Vista Memory Tweak Guide, the disk cache parameters reside in the registry:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSessionManagerMemory Management
Some important parameters are :
DisablePagingExecutive controls how inactive kernel-mode drivers and system code can be released from RAM and paged to the Page File. Unfortunately, you don't have a page file so system code never gets swapped out.
LargeSystemCache controls the size of the file system cache as follows:
- 0 (Default) a standard sized file system cache is allocated (less than 10MB RAM)
- 1 enables the use of a large file system cache (up to total RAM amount minus 4MB!)
If this value is zero in your case, then the disk cache is already as small as it can get. If the performance you get is not satisfying, then you must invest in hardware : either more RAM or a faster hard disk. Increasing RAM from 3GB to 4GB will only get you an increase of (1GB - video-memory), unless you also pass to a 64-bit version of Windows.
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
add a comment |
By default, Vista (and later) x86 will only allow 2 GB of virtual memory for each process. If one application needs more, for example 3GB, you can increase this by :
bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072
However this will only work for executables that were linked with the "large address aware" flag. Processes running other exe's will still be limited to 2 GB.
Real RAM is allocated as required for both applications and the system.
As this doesn't seem to be your problem, then to optimize the usage of memory one can first Disable SuperFetch on Windows Vista :
The SuperFetch service in Windows
Vista preloads your system’s memory
with the applications that you use
most often. This makes launching of
those applications much faster, but it
might be an unwanted behavior for
system tweakers or gamers.
Secondly, to control the disk cache size, AnalogX CacheBooster is a free tool that is said able to tweak the hard disk cache (never tried it myself), but I'm not sure that it will help, in view of the info below.
As described in Windows Vista Memory Tweak Guide, the disk cache parameters reside in the registry:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSessionManagerMemory Management
Some important parameters are :
DisablePagingExecutive controls how inactive kernel-mode drivers and system code can be released from RAM and paged to the Page File. Unfortunately, you don't have a page file so system code never gets swapped out.
LargeSystemCache controls the size of the file system cache as follows:
- 0 (Default) a standard sized file system cache is allocated (less than 10MB RAM)
- 1 enables the use of a large file system cache (up to total RAM amount minus 4MB!)
If this value is zero in your case, then the disk cache is already as small as it can get. If the performance you get is not satisfying, then you must invest in hardware : either more RAM or a faster hard disk. Increasing RAM from 3GB to 4GB will only get you an increase of (1GB - video-memory), unless you also pass to a 64-bit version of Windows.
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
add a comment |
By default, Vista (and later) x86 will only allow 2 GB of virtual memory for each process. If one application needs more, for example 3GB, you can increase this by :
bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072
However this will only work for executables that were linked with the "large address aware" flag. Processes running other exe's will still be limited to 2 GB.
Real RAM is allocated as required for both applications and the system.
As this doesn't seem to be your problem, then to optimize the usage of memory one can first Disable SuperFetch on Windows Vista :
The SuperFetch service in Windows
Vista preloads your system’s memory
with the applications that you use
most often. This makes launching of
those applications much faster, but it
might be an unwanted behavior for
system tweakers or gamers.
Secondly, to control the disk cache size, AnalogX CacheBooster is a free tool that is said able to tweak the hard disk cache (never tried it myself), but I'm not sure that it will help, in view of the info below.
As described in Windows Vista Memory Tweak Guide, the disk cache parameters reside in the registry:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSessionManagerMemory Management
Some important parameters are :
DisablePagingExecutive controls how inactive kernel-mode drivers and system code can be released from RAM and paged to the Page File. Unfortunately, you don't have a page file so system code never gets swapped out.
LargeSystemCache controls the size of the file system cache as follows:
- 0 (Default) a standard sized file system cache is allocated (less than 10MB RAM)
- 1 enables the use of a large file system cache (up to total RAM amount minus 4MB!)
If this value is zero in your case, then the disk cache is already as small as it can get. If the performance you get is not satisfying, then you must invest in hardware : either more RAM or a faster hard disk. Increasing RAM from 3GB to 4GB will only get you an increase of (1GB - video-memory), unless you also pass to a 64-bit version of Windows.
By default, Vista (and later) x86 will only allow 2 GB of virtual memory for each process. If one application needs more, for example 3GB, you can increase this by :
bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072
However this will only work for executables that were linked with the "large address aware" flag. Processes running other exe's will still be limited to 2 GB.
Real RAM is allocated as required for both applications and the system.
As this doesn't seem to be your problem, then to optimize the usage of memory one can first Disable SuperFetch on Windows Vista :
The SuperFetch service in Windows
Vista preloads your system’s memory
with the applications that you use
most often. This makes launching of
those applications much faster, but it
might be an unwanted behavior for
system tweakers or gamers.
Secondly, to control the disk cache size, AnalogX CacheBooster is a free tool that is said able to tweak the hard disk cache (never tried it myself), but I'm not sure that it will help, in view of the info below.
As described in Windows Vista Memory Tweak Guide, the disk cache parameters reside in the registry:HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetControlSessionManagerMemory Management
Some important parameters are :
DisablePagingExecutive controls how inactive kernel-mode drivers and system code can be released from RAM and paged to the Page File. Unfortunately, you don't have a page file so system code never gets swapped out.
LargeSystemCache controls the size of the file system cache as follows:
- 0 (Default) a standard sized file system cache is allocated (less than 10MB RAM)
- 1 enables the use of a large file system cache (up to total RAM amount minus 4MB!)
If this value is zero in your case, then the disk cache is already as small as it can get. If the performance you get is not satisfying, then you must invest in hardware : either more RAM or a faster hard disk. Increasing RAM from 3GB to 4GB will only get you an increase of (1GB - video-memory), unless you also pass to a 64-bit version of Windows.
edited Dec 22 '18 at 5:20
Jamie Hanrahan
17.8k34078
17.8k34078
answered Oct 8 '10 at 16:36
harrymc
254k13265565
254k13265565
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
add a comment |
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
The IncreaseUserVa switch controls the virtual memory space allocated to each program. It does not have any effect on the way that the physical memory within the system is handled. That is, this switch controls the amount of memory that individual programs can make use of, not the amount of memory that the system can use.
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 19:05
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I believe you are wrong : See my edit.
– harrymc
Oct 8 '10 at 20:47
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I still think that Virtual Memory (2 GB or 4 GB) is for each application, not for all of them total. One program can have 1 GB, second program can have another GB, third another GB. I don't need more than 2 GB for each program, I need Windows to drop its cache to allow me to use all of my 3 GB for programs, combined.
– Axarydax
Oct 9 '10 at 9:36
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
I think I misunderstood you, so I rewrote my answer.
– harrymc
Oct 9 '10 at 12:18
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
Re the advice to "disable SuperFetch": SuperFetch does not in any way add to the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! SuperFetch uses RAM that's already been put on the Standby page list (after being removed from processes). The SPL is already counted as part of "Cached". After using that RAM to cache file contents, SF leaves it on the Standby page list, so it's still counted as part of "Cached"! So all else being equal, disabling SuperFetch will not change the amount of RAM reported as "Cached"! That RAM is just used for a different sort of cache (a file cache rather than a page cache).
– Jamie Hanrahan
Dec 22 '18 at 5:24
add a comment |
A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used.
This popup has nothing to do with RAM, and nothing to do with Windows' cache. It means you are running out of commit limit. This is a limit on how much private virtual address space your processes can allocate.
There are three ways to increase your commit limit: 1) run less stuff or smaller stuff at one time; 2) increase RAM; 3) increase your pagefile size. This is because the commit limit is simply the size of RAM plus the current size of the pagefile.
If you would enable your pagefile the way the OS designers intended you wouldn't be seeing these messages and your programs wouldn't be crashing.
And despite what CausingUnderflowsEverywhere said in their comment, sometimes you need a pagefile to allow programs to allocate the virtual memory they need, even though there is plenty of available RAM, and even though the pagefile might not actually be used. For why, see my answers here and enter link description here here.
n.b.: Most of the "cached" RAM reported by Task Manager is still "Available"; the SuperFetch cache does not really "use" RAM. The "cache" is not what's causing your problem. Lack of a pagefile is.
add a comment |
A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used.
This popup has nothing to do with RAM, and nothing to do with Windows' cache. It means you are running out of commit limit. This is a limit on how much private virtual address space your processes can allocate.
There are three ways to increase your commit limit: 1) run less stuff or smaller stuff at one time; 2) increase RAM; 3) increase your pagefile size. This is because the commit limit is simply the size of RAM plus the current size of the pagefile.
If you would enable your pagefile the way the OS designers intended you wouldn't be seeing these messages and your programs wouldn't be crashing.
And despite what CausingUnderflowsEverywhere said in their comment, sometimes you need a pagefile to allow programs to allocate the virtual memory they need, even though there is plenty of available RAM, and even though the pagefile might not actually be used. For why, see my answers here and enter link description here here.
n.b.: Most of the "cached" RAM reported by Task Manager is still "Available"; the SuperFetch cache does not really "use" RAM. The "cache" is not what's causing your problem. Lack of a pagefile is.
add a comment |
A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used.
This popup has nothing to do with RAM, and nothing to do with Windows' cache. It means you are running out of commit limit. This is a limit on how much private virtual address space your processes can allocate.
There are three ways to increase your commit limit: 1) run less stuff or smaller stuff at one time; 2) increase RAM; 3) increase your pagefile size. This is because the commit limit is simply the size of RAM plus the current size of the pagefile.
If you would enable your pagefile the way the OS designers intended you wouldn't be seeing these messages and your programs wouldn't be crashing.
And despite what CausingUnderflowsEverywhere said in their comment, sometimes you need a pagefile to allow programs to allocate the virtual memory they need, even though there is plenty of available RAM, and even though the pagefile might not actually be used. For why, see my answers here and enter link description here here.
n.b.: Most of the "cached" RAM reported by Task Manager is still "Available"; the SuperFetch cache does not really "use" RAM. The "cache" is not what's causing your problem. Lack of a pagefile is.
A very annoying pop-up pops up every time when Windows thinks it's low on memory and of course apps crash when the memory is used.
This popup has nothing to do with RAM, and nothing to do with Windows' cache. It means you are running out of commit limit. This is a limit on how much private virtual address space your processes can allocate.
There are three ways to increase your commit limit: 1) run less stuff or smaller stuff at one time; 2) increase RAM; 3) increase your pagefile size. This is because the commit limit is simply the size of RAM plus the current size of the pagefile.
If you would enable your pagefile the way the OS designers intended you wouldn't be seeing these messages and your programs wouldn't be crashing.
And despite what CausingUnderflowsEverywhere said in their comment, sometimes you need a pagefile to allow programs to allocate the virtual memory they need, even though there is plenty of available RAM, and even though the pagefile might not actually be used. For why, see my answers here and enter link description here here.
n.b.: Most of the "cached" RAM reported by Task Manager is still "Available"; the SuperFetch cache does not really "use" RAM. The "cache" is not what's causing your problem. Lack of a pagefile is.
edited Dec 25 '18 at 9:24
answered Dec 21 '18 at 14:03
Jamie Hanrahan
17.8k34078
17.8k34078
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f197362%2fdisable-resize-windows-vista-disk-cache-to-increase-free-ram%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
won't decreasing cache also decrease snappiness?
– stijn
Oct 8 '10 at 12:07
I define snappiness as responsiveness between switching applications. As swap file is already off, all of them are in RAM - lightning fast switch. I'm willing to sacrifice disk I/O speed for it
– Axarydax
Oct 8 '10 at 12:45
2
@Axarydax; That's not how it works, disk cache can be dropped straight away, you're not actually losing any RAM at all. If you're getting low RAM warnings, it's not because of that - I ran Vista on 2GB of RAM, and never saw a low RAM warning.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 17:50
1
@Axarydax; Perhaps you should turn yours on, then. You can't have both an entirely RAM based system, and run more applications than you have the resources to maintain.
– Phoshi
Oct 8 '10 at 22:28
1
"that leaves only 2 GB for applications". This is not true. The memory used for a disk cache is available for applications. This question is based on the misconception that the pop up is warning you that you are running out of RAM and thus more free RAM will help. But read it closely -- it's not about RAM at all.
– David Schwartz
Aug 7 '17 at 17:45