16GB of Ram

[Looney]

4GB sticks are getting so cheap now, that i'm thinking on upgrading to 16GB of ram. Now, are there certain things i can do to optimize Windows under a 16GB system? Is a paging file still necessary? Do i create a ramdisk and load essential Windows files? Or move the paging file to a ramdisk? How about moving the browsers? Can i do it in such a way that i can keep cookies on my SSD?

So i guess my question is, what did you do when you moved to 16GB? Or what would you do if you moved to 16GB?

 

[Chiefcrowe]

If I were you i would keep the page file and let windows manage it. There may be certain situations where not having one could cause problems.

I don't know if it's possible, but paging file on a ramdisk could also cause issues if it runs out of room. At least that's what I think could happen.

Moving browsers to ramdisk is an interesting idea... let us know how that goes. I'm pretty sure that once you install a browser to a certain drive, you can't set cookies to go elsewhere though.

 

[Phynaz]

Put the memory in and let it be. Win7 is very,very good at memory management.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Let Windows manage the memory. You can't really eliminate the page file anyways. You can remove it but, Windows will simply recreate it when needed.

 

[mb]

What do you do that you feel the need for 16GB?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Now, are there certain things i can do to optimize Windows under a 16GB system?

Windows will automatically utilize the memory for your programs, and when not needed, your system cache.

Is a paging file still necessary?

It depends on how many applications you're running simultaneously. If you're the typical home user, you probably won't need a page file with that much physical memory.

Do i create a ramdisk and load essential Windows files?

Windows already does this, in a sense. When you access a Windows file (or any file, for that matter) it will remain in physical memory until Windows needs the memory pages for other tasks. If you have a large quantity of memory, it will essentially stay cached in memory indefinitely.

Or move the paging file to a ramdisk?

The page file's entire purpose is to allow for the more efficient use of physical memory. Placing the page on a ramdisk is completely counter-productive, and is one of the dumber ideas I've heard floating around the Internet.

In other words, don't do it.

How about moving the browsers?

See the advice regarding loading Windows system files into the ramdisk.

So i guess my question is, what did you do when you moved to 16GB? Or what would you do if you moved to 16GB?

I use my memory for virtualization, which allows me to prototype new network designs quickly. However, even just performing day to day tasks will make use of it.

Other than the financial spend, there's really no downside to using additional memory unless you're a super overclocker and need the tightings timings possible. The only disadvantage is a little bit more electricity usage to power the additional memory.

 

[Compman55]

Go for it, there is no such thing as too much ram or hard drive space.

 

[Looney]

Well, this has been a disappointing thread. I know Windows will utilize/manage the memory, but there has to be some things i can certainly do to optimize it with a ramdisk or an environment with 16GB. Even if Windows makes full use of all the ram i give it, and loads files into ram once i run it, i can still increase performance by preloading certain files into a ramdrive so when Windows does need them, they'll move from ramdisk > RAM quicker than SDD > RAM. But even if Windows itself wouldn't benefit, there are other software i can use a ramdrive for.

And why would loading a paging file onto a ramdisk be a stupid idea? Even with 8GB of ram, which i currently have, Windows still uses a pagefile even when i'm not anywhere near my memory limit. So if the pagefile is necessary even with 16GB, then you're still going to have a pagefile running off a HDD, which is slower than a ramdrive. So having the pagefile on a fast ramdisk should be beneficial, no?

I found this thread for using a ramdisk and gaming: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=268590

And this thread for Firefox http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/11/26/how-to-move-the-firefox-disk-cache-to-another-drive/

I'll need to play around to figure out to do this for Chrome.

Cameyo: http://lifehacker.com/5635017/cameyo-creates-a-portable-version-of-just-about-any-program - will allow me to make most programs into a stand alone program, which should make loading entire programs into a ramdrive easier.

Gaming is probably my biggest interest. I'll probably set up some macros or scripts so if i want to play EQ2 or WoW, it'll preload the game into the ramdrive while i get a drink. And another to move it back to the HDD when i'm done (ie when there are updates).

 

[Nothinman]

Well, this has been a disappointing thread. I know Windows will utilize/manage the memory, but there has to be some things i can certainly do to optimize it with a ramdisk or an environment with 16GB. Even if Windows makes full use of all the ram i give it, and loads files into ram once i run it, i can still increase performance by preloading certain files into a ramdrive so when Windows does need them, they'll move from ramdisk > RAM quicker than SDD > RAM. But even if Windows itself wouldn't benefit, there are other software i can use a ramdrive for.

You're way over-thinking this and preloading stuff into memory is what SuperFetch already does for you.

And why would loading a paging file onto a ramdisk be a stupid idea?

If you have to ask...

Get a copy of Inside Windows and read the chapters on memory management. Once you understand how virtual memory works and the role the pagefile plays within it, you'll realize how much of a waste that would be.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Even if Windows makes full use of all the ram i give it, and loads files into ram once i run it, i can still increase performance by preloading certain files into a ramdrive so when Windows does need them, they'll move from ramdisk > RAM quicker than SDD > RAM. But even if Windows itself wouldn't benefit, there are other software i can use a ramdrive for.

If you utilize a ramdisk as a means of pre-loading applications, you will subsequently lose the ability to use that physical memory as a system cache. Also, since Windows will cache programs in memory once you load them whether you're using a ramdisk or not, using a ramdisk means that your programs will be "cached" twice.

I'm sorry that this thread disappointed you, but as much as 16GB of RAM sounds, it's not nearly enough to hold modern complex applications in a permanent ramdisk buffer. There's not enough space for large applications like games, and small applications like Firefox load fast enough to make loading them into a ramdisk worthless.

Get 128GB of RAM, and then we can have a serious discussion about ramdisks.

And why would loading a paging file onto a ramdisk be a stupid idea? Even with 8GB of ram, which i currently have, Windows still uses a pagefile even when i'm not anywhere near my memory limit. So if the pagefile is necessary even with 16GB, then you're still going to have a pagefile running off a HDD, which is slower than a ramdrive. So having the pagefile on a fast ramdisk should be beneficial, no?

You misunderstand how the page file works. During normal activity, Windows is writing pages to the page file, so that when Windows encounters a situation where it needs to free up physical memory, it can rapidly free the pages that have already been backed in the page file. Windows doesn't read from the page file unless it needs a page that is no longer in physical memory, which only occurs if Windows has to trim pages from physical memory because of a low memory condition. It's this act of reading from the page file that causes the performance bottleneck typically associated with paging.

Keeping your page file in physical memory is a stupid idea because it reduces the amount of physical memory that Windows can use as, well, physical memory. Because there is less usable physical memory, there is more paging. If your goal is to not use your disk drive for the page file, you can achieve it more effectively by just turning the page file off.

Gaming is probably my biggest interest. I'll probably set up some macros or scripts so if i want to play EQ2 or WoW, it'll preload the game into the ramdrive while i get a drink. And another to move it back to the HDD when i'm done (ie when there are updates).

I haven't played WoW or EQ2, but most modern games spend more time decompressing and processing data than loading the data from disk. This is especially true if you have a SSD since you don't have to worry about file fragmentation.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, this has been a disappointing thread. I know Windows will utilize/manage the memory, but there has to be some things i can certainly do to optimize it with a ramdisk or an environment with 16GB. Even if Windows makes full use of all the ram i give it, and loads files into ram once i run it, i can still increase performance by preloading certain files into a ramdrive so when Windows does need them, they'll move from ramdisk > RAM quicker than SDD > RAM. But even if Windows itself wouldn't benefit, there are other software i can use a ramdrive for.

You're way over-thinking this and preloading stuff into memory is what SuperFetch already does for you.

And why would loading a paging file onto a ramdisk be a stupid idea?

If you have to ask, get a copy of Inside Windows and read the chapters on memory management. Once you understand how virtual memory works and the role the pagefile plays within it, you'll realize how much of a waste that would be.

 

[Phynaz]

It depends on how many applications you're running simultaneously. If you're the typical home user, you probably won't need a page file with that much physical memory.

This is a horrible idea. I don't care if you have 256GB or ram, Windows needs a paging file.

Unless you want an unstable system.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[theevilsharpie]

I don't care if you have 256GB or ram, Windows needs a paging file.

No, it doesn't.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

It sounds like you're trying to find a way to use 16GB when you don't really need 16GB.

 

[ModestGamer]

What do you do that you feel the need for 16GB?

Well maybe not in this case but to some degree certain VST instruments can pull in massive amounts of ram for samples.

 

[KeypoX]

ram is crazy expensive these days. I remember when 2gb was like 10 bucks couple years ago.

 

[ModestGamer]

ram is crazy expensive these days. I remember when 2gb was like 10 bucks couple years ago.

I remember when it was $100 a mb.

 

[RebateMonger]

I remember when it was $100 a mb.

And then a DRAM shortage around 1988 brought the price back up to $400 a MB for a year or so. That was so sad. Right when software like QEMM and DESQView were able to make use of more than 1 MB of memory for multitasking, the prices soared out of sight.

 

[fire400]

RAID-0 SSD drives; if you do it right..

 

[YoshiMon]

This is a horrible idea. I don't care if you have 256GB or ram, Windows needs a paging file.

Unless you want an unstable system.

100% wrong. I can only guess that your trolling or just out of date but anyway here is some proof:

My main system that runs with no swap. As of that screenshot it had running: Opera (my 2nd monitors browser), Firefox (my main browser), WMP streaming some Sportscenter from my Orb server (The computer that runs my Orb server also runs w/o any page file.), WoW, and Thunderbird along with a few other small things in my systray like Daemon tools and such.

The system is 100% stable and I overall could not be more pleased with it since I upgraded from 2 to 4 gigs. I also do things like edit video with Premiere, run virtual machines with both VMware and VirtualBox, transcode video and audio, normal office type programs and so on.

Can I run it out of memory? Yes, if I do something really silly like give a VM a bunch of memory and then open up the WoW client and such. But day to day it is rock solid stable and hell if I had 16 gigs I could get away with doing stuff like running VMs while playing WoW or working in Premiere.

 

[Nothinman]

100% wrong. I can only guess that your trolling or just out of date but anyway here is some proof:

My main system that runs with no swap. As of that screenshot it had running: Opera (my 2nd monitors browser), Firefox (my main browser), WMP streaming some Sportscenter from my Orb server (The computer that runs my Orb server also runs w/o any page file.), WoW, and Thunderbird along with a few other small things in my systray like Daemon tools and such.

The system is 100% stable and I overall could not be more pleased with it since I upgraded from 2 to 4 gigs. I also do things like edit video with Premiere, run virtual machines with both VMware and VirtualBox, transcode video and audio, normal office type programs and so on.

Can I run it out of memory? Yes, if I do something really silly like give a VM a bunch of memory and then open up the WoW client and such. But day to day it is rock solid stable and hell if I had 16 gigs I could get away with doing stuff like running VMs while playing WoW or working in Premiere.

Just because it happens to work for you doesn't mean it's a good idea. If your max commit charge fits into your physical memory all you've done is remove a safety net so that when memory does get tight Windows has may have no option but to kill a process instead of being able to evict modified pages to the pagefile to make room. Paging is still happening, just from different sources. If you're willing to accept the risk that's fine, but you shouldn't advocate running like that to other people without explaining the risks.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Just because it happens to work for you doesn't mean it's a good idea. If your max commit charge fits into your physical memory all you've done is remove a safety net so that when memory does get tight Windows has may have no option but to kill a process instead of being able to evict modified pages to the pagefile to make room. Paging is still happening, just from different sources. If you're willing to accept the risk that's fine, but you shouldn't advocate running like that to other people without explaining the risks.

Wouldn't you get low memory warnings before it kills a process?

If there's a risk of running out of physical memory without a page file then isn't there also a risk of running out of disk space with a page file? At what specific point is the amount of memory + disk space sufficient enough to mitigate the risk of running out?

 

[YoshiMon]

If you're willing to accept the risk that's fine, but you shouldn't advocate running like that to other people without explaining the risks.

Never did anything like advocate running w/o a swap file. Rather I was just putting up some definitive proof to contradict what was a blatantly false statement.

Do I ever setup a clients system w/o a swap file or even say to someone on a forum that they should do it? I can't even remember it being a part of a discussion I've had frankly.

Do I know that it is possible and that I am able to do it without issue? Yes.

 

[Nothinman]

Wouldn't you get low memory warnings before it kills a process?

If there's a risk of running out of physical memory without a page file then isn't there also a risk of running out of disk space with a page file? At what specific point is the amount of memory + disk space sufficient enough to mitigate the risk of running out?

Yea, but if you've seen those "Low Virtual Memory" warnings you know that they're usually accompanied by so much disk thrashing that you can't actually do anything but wait for it to kill something.

Technically no amount of memory or disk space is sufficient to completely mitigate the risk because each process has it's own set of VM and can potentially access thousands of times more memory than any machine will have in it within the next decade. The best you can do is let Windows manage the pagefile and hope for the best.

Never did anything like advocate running w/o a swap file. Rather I was just putting up some definitive proof to contradict what was a blatantly false statement.

The fact that it works for your workload isn't definitive proof, it's anecdotal evidence.