it to
and with out the complete code what real good was a few lines?
Sorry walk down memory lane terminated (paged).
From: James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Date: Mon, 15
well, I'm not sure we're saying the exact same thing. The point I was
trying to make was, that while a great portion of the executive's
memory is going to be active all the time, and stay in RAM, a portion
of it will also go unused and be candidates for the pagefile. I said
I doubt that something
nah, that's ok.
On 8/15/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Your HLDS and SRCDS work don't they? STFU and go join a chatroom somewhere
> or shack up as roommates. Either way STFU.
--
Clayton Macleod
>get ye flask
You cannot get ye flask.
__
On 8/15/05, Clayton Macleod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, the point there wasn't that servers are going to have
> superfluous hardware. The point was that pretty much nothing is going
> to cause every single page used by the executive to be active enough
> to keep it all in ram at all times.
rtner and mvp login, not everything though. n'er mind.
>
> >From: Clayton Macleod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
> >To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
> >Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
> >Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05
e.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
yeah, basically apps just deal with virtual memory, and the OS is what
deals between RAM and the pagefile. Each app gets its own 2gigs of
address space to allocate memory for itself from, and the OS is what
determines the actual RAM/pagefile usage
yeah, basically apps just deal with virtual memory, and the OS is what
deals between RAM and the pagefile. Each app gets its own 2gigs of
address space to allocate memory for itself from, and the OS is what
determines the actual RAM/pagefile usage.
On 8/15/05, Dustin Tuft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
well, the point there wasn't that servers are going to have
superfluous hardware. The point was that pretty much nothing is going
to cause every single page used by the executive to be active enough
to keep it all in ram at all times. Given that this is likely to be
way under a hundred megs, way
Clayton Macleod wrote:
Been too long I guess, I don't recall. For some reason my memory
seems to do better with the meat than with the potatoes.
Yeah know that problem, last time I touched sendmail was nearly 5 years
ago now, and I looked at the config the other day in shock. :)
Yeah, I ad
owed a
burner while I was employed under the PSS outsource :'(
From: Clayton Macleod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:25:53 -0700
Been too long I guess,
Been too long I guess, I don't recall. For some reason my memory
seems to do better with the meat than with the potatoes.
Yeah, I addressed the collateral stuff in my next post there.
I'm not saying the executive memory space is unimportant. I only said
that applications' memory space isn't the
Clayton Macleod wrote:
re: memory reporting, even the "working set" value you get from the
'performance monitor' doesn't really necessarily tell you how much RAM
the process is actually using just for itself, because this value
includes any shared memory, not just private memory. I'm honestly
well, I guess there would be some collateral damage done since there
will be slightly less RAM available for the apps to use, since the
executive isn't being paged anymore. So indirectly the amount of
application paging would increase, though I don't think it would be
enough of an impact to worry
re: memory reporting, even the "working set" value you get from the
'performance monitor' doesn't really necessarily tell you how much RAM
the process is actually using just for itself, because this value
includes any shared memory, not just private memory. I'm honestly
sorry that I can't recall w
Clayton Macleod wrote:
actually, no, task manager doesn't tell you exactly what you think it
is telling you. If MS didn't purge their beta newsgroups after the end
of their betas I could find a quote for you. (dammit) I'm not sure if
a similar explanation is in any of their public docs or not.
*ahem*
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/2000/server/reskit/en-us/regentry/29931.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windowsserver2003/library/DepKit/3d3b3c16-c901-46de-8485-166a819af3ad.
actually, no, task manager doesn't tell you exactly what you think it
is telling you. If MS didn't purge their beta newsgroups after the end
of their betas I could find a quote for you. (dammit) I'm not sure if
a similar explanation is in any of their public docs or not. I'll take
a look in the mor
hahahaha, I'm just having a conversation, Mr. Angry Eyes.
On 8/15/05, James Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Go check explorer performance in this scenario and fuck off with your
> arrogance. If you think that dynamic systems can be optimised form the
> theoretical standpoint then you have li
Clayton Macleod wrote:
uh, yeah. Like I said, you need a refresher. It's quite apparent
from your "disabling the paging executive" statement. Clearly you
think you are disabling something called the "paging executive" which
you think means you're causing the OS to hit the pagefile less. Sor
Clayton - you have mostly understood the articles you have read. Whilst
you understand the general principle of a paging system, clearly, you
misunderstand that they are systematic, logical and non-optimal as with
caching algorithms.
Clayton Macleod wrote:
MS themselves say that there is no way
uh, yeah. Like I said, you need a refresher. It's quite apparent
from your "disabling the paging executive" statement. Clearly you
think you are disabling something called the "paging executive" which
you think means you're causing the OS to hit the pagefile less. Sorry
to tell you, but the set
Clayton Macleod wrote:
I think perhaps a refresher is warranted here, since you're forgetting
one basic fact, which is even mentioned in the article listed.
How many kernels have you built?
"Virtual Memory is always in use, even when the memory required by all
running processes does not excee
o fun talking Granma throught process of F8 on startup.
Dustin
- Original Message -
From: "Clayton Macleod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:19 AM
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
I think perhaps a refresher is warranted here, since
I think perhaps a refresher is warranted here, since you're forgetting
one basic fact, which is even mentioned in the article listed.
"Virtual Memory is always in use, even when the memory required by all
running processes does not exceed the amount of RAM installed on the
system."
You should alw
MS themselves say that there is no way for us to know how much of any
process is in RAM and how much is in the pagefile, so, I don't know
where you're getting this information from. Besides, *everything* is
in virtual memory. And there is no point in keeping pages in RAM that
aren't being accesse
Scott Tuttle wrote:
One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for
paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's
own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is
not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restric
> One simple way of forcing Windows to use more ram and less hard drive for
> paging is to set you page file size and do not allow windows to manage it's
> own file size. But do keep in mind windows is designed to page data that is
> not needed out of RAM into the page file. Restricting your page f
AIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
they are all 15000 rpm scsi drives in a raid 1 array they are quite fast
but
no where near as fast as ram. I think ill not tinker with what workes
fine,
just equip the servers in
] Behalf Of Dustin
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 12:05 PM
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
It does seem like a waste of RAM, but that's how Windows manages resources.
One thing to consider, Windows might be levearging your hard drive more
becas
t: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless
IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also
remain stable.
Unfortunately there isn't at
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless
IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also
remain stable.
Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum,
it is dependant on your har
James Tucker
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM
To: hlds@list.valvesoftware.com
Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session
Manager\Memory Management
In
] windows 2003 memory tweaking
Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session
Manager\Memory Management
In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the
kernel into ram - this may or may n
Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session
Manager\Memory Management
In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the
kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page
fau
34 matches
Mail list logo
