virtual memory

User avatar
Akashio
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:46 pm
Org Profile

Post by Akashio » Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:37 pm

Ok I'm in the virtual memory window and I want to specify the settings on my D Drive (since it doesn't contain windows system files) but it says I have -10507MB free on my D drive whereas it says it has 1127MB free for my C drive! Now why would windows give me a negative value for free virtual memory??? If it's relavent at all, I have 50+gigs free on my D drive and 1.10 gigs on my C drive. But thats physical memory isnt it?

User avatar
jbone
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 4:45 am
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)
Location: DC, USA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by jbone » Sat Jul 06, 2002 2:34 am

Akashio wrote:Ok I'm in the virtual memory window and I want to specify the settings on my D Drive (since it doesn't contain windows system files) but it says I have -10507MB free on my D drive whereas it says it has 1127MB free for my C drive! Now why would windows give me a negative value for free virtual memory??? If it's relavent at all, I have 50+gigs free on my D drive and 1.10 gigs on my C drive. But thats physical memory isnt it?
The free hard disk space is not physical memory, it's simply free disk space. Physical memory is the amount you have installed as DIMMs in your computer (128MB/256MB/512MB/etc).

It's possible that Windows simply doesn't recognize your D drive as a valid source for use with virtual memory. Why this would happen, though, I have no idea - I don't recall having ever come across that particular problem myself.

Why exactly do you want to change your virtual memory settings? If you don't have enough free space on your C drive, why not simply move files to the other drive?

I've typically found that Win9x boxes work fine when Windows handles virtual memory automatically.

User avatar
Sub0
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:32 pm
Location: a small cabin on the edge of sanity
Org Profile

Post by Sub0 » Sat Jul 06, 2002 3:49 am

Akashio wrote:Ok I'm in the virtual memory window and I want to specify the settings on my D Drive (since it doesn't contain windows system files) but it says I have -10507MB free on my D drive whereas it says it has 1127MB free for my C drive! Now why would windows give me a negative value for free virtual memory??? If it's relavent at all, I have 50+gigs free on my D drive and 1.10 gigs on my C drive. But thats physical memory isnt it?
I've come across that alot and I always end up going crazy and reinstalling Windows 98, but that's just me.... Like I said, Win9x SUCKS at that kinda' stuff..... and just about everything else.

User avatar
klinky
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 12:23 am
Location: Cookie College...
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by klinky » Sat Jul 06, 2002 5:33 am

Lets not forget that AVISynth uses Virtual Memory over regular memory when saving those uncompressed bitmaps. If you disable Virtual Memory you're going to run into problems. Premiere for instance, also likes to grab a nice huge (usually 400MB) chunk of Virtual Memory. Even though I have 1280MB, it still grabs if I disable virtual memory Premiere balks that I don't have enough memory. Most media programs depend on virtual memory in one way or another and are designed that way, so they may not function with virtual memory turned off.


~klinky

User avatar
mofisto
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 2:50 pm
Location: Waverly, IA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by mofisto » Sun Jul 07, 2002 7:00 am

Okay jbone, while upgrading might not be an option, using Virtual Memory in the method inquired about is retarded. I didn't say that it is dumb to use it, just dumb to use 15-20gigs worth.

As for Dual CPU, that does speed up your editing, because while 1 cpu is working on the OS the other can work on the editing. On threaded OSes like Linux and what not, it can turn a 2hour render into 1 - 1.5 hour, a small improvement, but worth it is you are serious about editing.

If you have a P733 and 448mb of RAM of course your system works fine. I was doing my vids on a AMDk6-2 450 with only 64mb of RAM and a 15gb hard drive. While I don't claim to be the best director out there by any means, my videos turned out fine.

If you don't have windows XP then set your virtual memory to something like 256mb or 128mb any more then that is stupid, because then you will start lagging because your hard drive can't move data that fast, even with UDMA.

User avatar
jbone
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 4:45 am
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)
Location: DC, USA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by jbone » Sun Jul 07, 2002 2:03 pm

mofisto wrote:As for Dual CPU, that does speed up your editing, because while 1 cpu is working on the OS the other can work on the editing. On threaded OSes like Linux and what not, it can turn a 2hour render into 1 - 1.5 hour, a small improvement, but worth it is you are serious about editing.
Wow, Mofisto. I didn't think it was possible for <I>anyone</I> to <I>so</I> misunderstand the <I>incredibly</I> simple statement that "a dual CPU system has NO bearing WHATSOEVER on memory." :-D

User avatar
mofisto
Joined: Tue May 01, 2001 2:50 pm
Location: Waverly, IA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by mofisto » Mon Jul 08, 2002 6:55 am

Not every piece of hardware on a computer is DMA capable. If its not, then the CPU sends instructions to memory. HENCE your system bus speeds. So there for, CPU does effect memory. You cannot get the same performance out of a 486dx with 256mb of memory as you could with a dual athalon MP running at 1.2ghz each. Aside from the fact that 486dx processors aren't using the same type of memory. The faster your CPU can write to memory and get back to processing, the more speed you will notice.

SO therefore your statement about a simple statement is incorrect.

User avatar
jbone
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 4:45 am
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)
Location: DC, USA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by jbone » Mon Jul 08, 2002 12:46 pm

mofisto wrote:Not every piece of hardware on a computer is DMA capable. If its not, then the CPU sends instructions to memory. HENCE your system bus speeds. So there for, CPU does effect memory. You cannot get the same performance out of a 486dx with 256mb of memory as you could with a dual athalon MP running at 1.2ghz each. Aside from the fact that 486dx processors aren't using the same type of memory. The faster your CPU can write to memory and get back to processing, the more speed you will notice.

SO therefore your statement about a simple statement is incorrect.
Your example demonstrates that you <I>still</I> have no idea what I'm talking about.

<I>I am not talking about performance. I am talking about quantity.</I> If someone has 384MB of RAM and, at a given instant, 497MB of data wants to go into RAM, you can stick in 64 CPUs for all you want, <I>you will not be able to get more than 384MB of data into physical memory.</I>

Oh, and you misspelled "therefore."

User avatar
FirestormXIII
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:22 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ
Org Profile

Post by FirestormXIII » Tue Jul 09, 2002 7:00 pm

jbone wrote: Oh, and you misspelled "therefore."
You make me laugh with the strangest things jbone.

User avatar
jbone
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2002 4:45 am
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)
Location: DC, USA
Contact:
Org Profile

Post by jbone » Tue Jul 09, 2002 7:55 pm

FirestormXIII wrote:
jbone wrote: Oh, and you misspelled "therefore."
You make me laugh with the strangest things jbone.
I try. :-D

Locked

Return to “Hardware Discussion”