Thinkpads Forum

Is anyone else having this problem? I have 2 GB of memory on my new T60p and when I get up to about 1.5 GB used as shown by the total commit charge in Windows task manager, programs start failing to run or failing to work properly. This is really frustrating and is probably down to Windows XP memory fragmentation although I'm not sure. Has anyone else experienced this and/or knows what to do about it if anything?

-- Bill

PS. I have 2GB allocated to the pagefile

XP is actually pretty good about ram management. What in the world are you doing that's using so much ram?

I can run all of XP plus one additional simultaneous complete machine all in about 600Mb. I cannot imagine how to use up 1.5Gb or why programs would complain even with 500Mb free memory.

Did you turn your paging file off? Or make it too small?
... JD Hurst

marlinspike wrote:XP is actually pretty good about ram management. What in the world are you doing that's using so much ram?

I don't know. Its a mystery. How do i find out? Task Manager isn't much help.

Go to the task manager, processes tab, then click mem usage to get it to sort by mem usage and see what's eating your ram.

Better yet, in Task Manager, click on View > Select Columns and turn on Virtual Memory Size and check that, too.

tomh009 wrote:turn on Virtual Memory Size and check that, too.

Thanks for the tip. I am surprised that pretty much all of the 44 processes running on my Dell desktop computer (with 2GB of PC3200 RAM and 3GB of paging file) are using some virtual memory, even though they add up to only 390MB. Why can't they restrict themselves to the "real" memory until it gets full? Doesn't the virtual memory slow things down?

The apps actually just request memory -- Windows then decides whether that's physical memory or swapped to disk. But, yes, at any given time, most apps are partially paged out to disk to keep sufficient available physical memory.

I've added up all the processes in the Mem Usage and also in the VM Size columns and neither column adds up to "Total Commit Charge". Where's the unaccounted memory being used?

Would increasing my page file size from 2gb to 3gb (for 2gb of memory) help keep me from running out of resources when I reach 1.5 gb total commit charge?

I have the paging file always deactivated because windows still puts stuff in the pagefile even if there is plenty of ram free.

On my X31 with 768MB I ran XP without Pagefile and had no probs with standard office and internet programs.

On my T60p with 2GB I can even run Counterstrike Source.

Windows is a lot snappier without a paging file. If you don't need it (Photoshop, Videoediting) turn it off completely and you will see the performance increase.

WPWoodJr wrote:I've added up all the processes in the Mem Usage and also in the VM Size columns and neither column adds up to "Total Commit Charge". Where's the unaccounted memory being used?

Would increasing my page file size from 2gb to 3gb (for 2gb of memory) help keep me from running out of resources when I reach 1.5 gb total commit charge?

When you find yourself using up 1.5gb of ram, do you have Photoshop open? What are some of the programs you use? Also, at the end of the day do you shut down your computer or use standby?

WPWoodJr wrote:I've added up all the processes in the Mem Usage and also in the VM Size columns and neither column adds up to "Total Commit Charge". Where's the unaccounted memory being used?

Would increasing my page file size from 2gb to 3gb (for 2gb of memory) help keep me from running out of resources when I reach 1.5 gb total commit charge?

Two things:
1. Total Commit Charge is not the memory being used (so far as I know). I use FreeMem Pro, and looking at my ThinkPad right now (as I type away on my Desktop), FreeMem Pro tells me I have 180Mb free (of 768 Total) and System Information tells me I have the same 180Mb free. Meanwhile Commit Charge says I have used 434Mb and therefore have 334Mb free. So Commit Charge (which doesn't say it is the memory number) also isn't the memory number.

System Information lives in PF \ Microsoft Shared\MSInfo and is msinfo32.exe

2. Please run Task Manager and tell us what application is using all that memory. So far you haven't done that.

We are all trying to assist. ... JD Hurst

marlinspike wrote: When you find yourself using up 1.5gb of ram, do you have Photoshop open? What are some of the programs you use? Also, at the end of the day do you shut down your computer or use standby?

This happens during the day when I'm running lots of stuff at work. For instance, ACDSee, IE, Firefox, Lotus Notes, Windows Explorer, Groove, Google Desktop, PowerStrip, Onenote, Google Talk, Dragon Naturally Speaking, Photoshop, Sametime, Acrobat, VMWare, etc.

In task manager under Mem Usage (which is the process working set), VMWare is the worst at 407mb, Firefox is the next worst at 320mb (I have many windows/tabs open), then photoshop at 152mb, then Naturally Speaking at 90mb, then ACDSee at 50mb, then IE at 50mb.

I never reboot if possible but use standby.

I simulated this condition last night by running the above programs. I'd like to know which resources are low so I can determine which programs are aggravating the problem the most, or take other action.

How many photos are open at a time in Photoshop? I've found Photoshop (CS2 anyways, I forget about CS), doesn't accurately say how much ram it is using in the task manager, but when you look at how much ram is being used total by all software that figure is accurate. If you've got one photo open it's fine, but 20 open like I sometimes have and it starts eating ram.

Also, honestly, switch to IE 7 from Firefox. Firefox eats ram (i.e. just sitting there it uses more and more ram) as a way to make return trips to webpages faster...not something you want when having lots of stuff open.

WPWoodJr wrote:I've added up all the processes in the Mem Usage and also in the VM Size columns and neither column adds up to "Total Commit Charge". Where's the unaccounted memory being used?

Would increasing my page file size from 2gb to 3gb (for 2gb of memory) help keep me from running out of resources when I reach 1.5 gb total commit charge?

The total commit charge is essentially the total virtual memory in use. However, adding up the virtual memory for all the tasks in Task Manager leaves out one critical piece: the memory used by the OS kernel itself. That, too, is shown on the third page of the task manager. Adding that should give you a number fairly close to the total commit charge (memory-mapped i/o and a few other things are not shown in task virtual memory but count against commit charge nevertheless).

WPWoodJr wrote:<snip>
In task manager under Mem Usage (which is the process working set), VMWare is the worst at 407mb, Firefox is the next worst at 320mb <snip>

The memory VMWare uses is for itself *and* for the virtual machines in use. I allocate a max of 192Mb for any one machine (even though more would be desirable and in fact, more is the default). So 400 MB for VMWare and a running machine is probably reasonable.

Firefox at 320Mb is downright unruly. IE consumes about 40Mb on my Windows machine, and Firefox runs fine in my Ubuntu machine where the whole Ubuntu setup is confined to 192 Mb.

It is starting to appear that Windows and your use of it is using all available resources. .... JD Hurst

marlinspike wrote:How many photos are open at a time in Photoshop? I've found Photoshop (CS2 anyways, I forget about CS), doesn't accurately say how much ram it is using in the task manager, but when you look at how much ram is being used total by all software that figure is accurate. If you've got one photo open it's fine, but 20 open like I sometimes have and it starts eating ram.

Also, honestly, switch to IE 7 from Firefox. Firefox eats ram (i.e. just sitting there it uses more and more ram) as a way to make return trips to webpages faster...not something you want when having lots of stuff open.

I have nothing to really contribute to this topic, but I've had firefox well above 200mb one time.

ms wrote:I have the paging file always deactivated because windows still puts stuff in the pagefile even if there is plenty of ram free.

I think this is not a good idea. See:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

Which says:
Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really large machine?
Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be “turned off.” What is meant by such wording is “set the system to use no page file space at all.”

Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can assign them to it — if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it out from any actual use.

There are some performance gains in some situations, but the single biggest gain from turning off the page file is from the reduction of disk i/o (and this the reduction of disk power consumption).

It seems that XP still has a problem inherited from the 16-bit versions of windows, which is that it can run out of system resources (handles) before it runs out of memory. So, regardless of virtual memory settings, it is possible to get memory errors while some memory is still unallocated.

claudeo wrote:It seems that XP still has a problem inherited from the 16-bit versions of windows, which is that it can run out of system resources (handles) before it runs out of memory. So, regardless of virtual memory settings, it is possible to get memory errors while some memory is still unallocated.

Can you quote a source for that? It appears not to be true for memory sizes of 768 Mb or less. The original poster was dealing with more than that. Does your statement apply to these large sizes?
... JD Hurst

claudeo wrote:It seems that XP still has a problem inherited from the 16-bit versions of windows, which is that it can run out of system resources (handles) before it runs out of memory. So, regardless of virtual memory settings, it is possible to get memory errors while some memory is still unallocated.

I'm beginning to think this is true. I have been playing with the "Consume" program from Windows Resource Kit which lets you consume all page file space or all physical memory. XP is handling these extreme conditions really well.

I played with "consume -kernel-pool" from the Windows Resource Kit. This command consumes all the available kernel memory (as displayed in the Performance tab of Task Manager). I think this might be it. The computer acts weird under these conditions, things just silently don't work. Will look into this more.

If your video card uses hyper memory, that is where your ram is going. I have a desktop at home that had a cheap video card in it that used hyper memory and then switch to a top of the line card with independent memory and I saw a huge difference in my used ram (500mg or so).

My T60 uses hyper memory and my 2 gigs of ram gets used up quickly.

marlinspike wrote:Also, honestly, switch to IE 7 from Firefox. Firefox eats ram (i.e. just sitting there it uses more and more ram) as a way to make return trips to webpages faster...not something you want when having lots of stuff open.

I looked into this. The maximum pages that Firefox will remember in order to revisit them more quickly is 8 and it varies by how much memory you have. See the section on max_total_viewers in this document on reducing Firefox memory usage:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Memory_Leak

This is probably not a significant factor in my Firefox memory usage. I have 45+ windows open with multiple tabs in each - that's why its using so much memory!

claudeo wrote:It seems that XP still has a problem inherited from the 16-bit versions of windows, which is that it can run out of system resources (handles) before it runs out of memory. So, regardless of virtual memory settings, it is possible to get memory errors while some memory is still unallocated.

I've got the answer, and boy is it obscure. claudeo is correct, XP can run out of a certain resource before it runs out of memory, although I don't think this resource is inherited from 16-bit Windows.

It took me a long time and lots of testing to dig this up, almost everything you read on the Internet about XP memory problems is talking about the page file size and memory management. My guess is that many people are actually experiencing this problem: The system has run out of desktop heap. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/184802

I have modified my "interactive" window station desktop heap upwards from 3072kb to 4096kb. I can now run over 100 programs with 2.3GB or more of Total Commit Charge and I still don't have any problems (whereas before problems would start at around 1.6GB Total Commit Charge (as viewed in Task Manager)).

During my testing I determined that my page file was too big, it was never being used past 25%. So, I reduced its size from 2GB to 1GB (minimum; 4GB max) - a nice side bonus to all this!

Here's another good article on desktop heap:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/archi ... rview.aspx

I run a 3D app along with image browser and Photoshop Illustrator and have run out of memory resources. I resorted to only one task at a time after several forced restarts and lost work.

I had removed the paging file completely because I felt Windows may be stumbling between ram and the paging file and not an issue yet. But I'm game for better performance. Let me give this a shot.

You definitely should reinstate your paging file. It lets Windows park unused pages and use memory more efficiently.