Thinkpads Forum

The reason for posting a Z61p matter in this T6x-forum, is based on the fact that the Z61p is a "T60-Advanced", so this experiment can be used on all Merom/945 T6x's.

I have this absurd thing going on, on my Z61p and I tried to make some reason with it in my posting at the Lenovo-site.
Don't think I managed to succeed. Folks must be shaking their heads in disbelief. No surprise, and I'm not able to delete my post.

I've installed 2 sticks of 2GB Kingston TP667/2G and as I expected, only 3GB physical is shown, if you hit [System] in [Controlpanel] in XP. Normal behavior.

I've also configured the system to run with the pagefile on a Ramdisk@1GB, disabling any pagefile on the harddrive.
Since the Ramdisk takes 1GB from the 3GB, the usable ram in XP should be 2GB and the allocated memory (Commit Charge Limit) should be 3GB. (Usable ram+pagefile)

The funny thing is, that if I open Taskmanager with this configuration, it says 3.99GB of allocated memory (Commit Charge Limit) and all can be used.
If I have a lot of programs running, the machine is using the allocated memory.
How in the world can this happen ?
There's absolutely no other pagefile on the harddrive. I swear !

Is it possible that someone with these types of machines, T60/Z61, can redo the experiment and post a result. I'm quite fascinated with this.

[edit]
-Added (Commit Charge Limit).
-The Ramdisk appears in Device Manager as "Sample Driver" and underneath "Ramdisk Driver", Microsoft, 14-11-1999, Version 5.0.2183.1
-Spellchecking.
-Lenovo.forum deadmeat posting at:http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Z-Series-Th ... d-p/253791

Giday DK*..... re: posts here being weird ,,,mmmm, >maybe cause its gatekeepr is an aussie like me << sorry uncle bill juz givn u some cheek>

Okok.... RAMDISK > I did have very similar setup on my T60P w-XP pro x64 (2007 model) some years ago ...except I had loaded 2x 4gb Ram sticks! > everyting works fine as noraml - the OS; softwares & RAMDISK seems to work fine - MOST OF THE TIMES....except once a while I would loose the RAMDISK all together and the data it contained. Whenever this happned - I noticed the RAM chips were like "hotter" than normal. I stopped and laoded 4GB (2x2GB) and it seems more stable....

So I jsut put the sudden LOSS of data = Chips being overworked via RAMDISK in winodws XP x64...... and this NEVER HAPPEND IN LIN-DOS nor LINUX running.

For me , i couldnt be bothered with MS and ts "SYSTEM' data and screen --- they cant seem to get THAT TABKE to work 'correctly' in years ...... and its jsut a 'show& tell" feature for my sake. I wasnt running XP x32 , so it didnt matter to me about 2.9XXX showing etc ,, as you very well know from other 'table' data shows differently!


For me RAMDISK = was excellent way to make my laptop RUN QUERIES/REPORTS superfast and excute things at good speeds ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well except every nnow and than it DIED TOTALLY in windows !

Not sure if this help > but I would recommend try Xp x64 on t60> runs really nicely

@ausmike:
I would suggest to install a spell-checker on your PC or laptop.
Your posts are absolutely atrocious.

Example location: DownUder ????

DK6400Brian,
This sounds very interesting. Have you tried this with 2 x 4GB? I only have 1 x2GB stick with a 1GB stick, so I can't emulate that set up(and I probably wouldn't know what to do without some hand holding...)

Worzyl wrote:DK6400Brian,
This sounds very interesting. Have you tried this with 2 x 4GB? I only have 1 x2GB stick with a 1GB stick, so I can't emulate that set up(and I probably wouldn't know what to do without some hand holding...)

No I haven't tried 2x4GB in this Merom/945 machine, since I presume it wouldn't work out any good. Beside, 4GB sticks are way too expensive anno mid-2010. I presume the machine can't recognize that much in the banks anyhow. Also, the "hack" for recognizing 8GB is for the Merom-Penryn/965 machines, like the T61/T61p.

I had this setup running for half a year or so, before lightning stroke while watching the Commit Charge Limit in Taskmanager one day: "That's weird. 3.99GB ? I specifically gave the system orders only to run in Ram. How ? Investigate. Investigate"
I checked and doublechecked. No pagefile on the harddrive in Explorer or Diskdefragmenter. No automatic pagefilesize. No extra pagefilesetup hiding in the Registry/Regedit. Only a 1GB Ramdisk and a 1GB pagefile on that same Ramdisk !
Still 3.99GB usable memory.

I really find this behavior pretty strange and I can't find any explanation.

[edit] Spellchecking

ausmike wrote:Giday DK*..... re: posts here being weird ,,,mmmm, >maybe cause its gatekeepr is an aussie like me << sorry uncle bill juz givn u some cheek>

Okok.... RAMDISK > I did have very similar setup on my T60P w-XP pro x64 (2007 model) some years ago ...except I had loaded 2x 4gb Ram sticks!
....
Not sure if this help > but I would recommend try Xp x64 on t60> runs really nicely

Thanks mate.
Can you positively confirm that the T60p did recognize 2x4GB=8GB ? Sorry for asking for this piece of information even though you're have written it already.

Running Windows XP x86 on this Z61p, 0674-KSG. T7200, 4GB.

I'm familiar with Windows 7 Ultimate x64. It's running stable on my T61p, 6457-7XG. T7800, 4GB.

Cheers.

Hiya DK*...

Sorry I DONT have accees to the T60P now (was donated to charity)
Yips - I dont care to read much of the 'systems info" stuff from windows...(yips Also nor can I SPELL)
YIP ,,,,,t60P model 2007 was physically loaded with 8GB Ram, XPpeo X64 (I never use Windows x32 OS anywhere since I / We hardly use any/much Win Apps.

Costs of H/Ware = never an issue for me as 'the company' pays for all of them...

it worked for me ... for what I used it for ,,,, except everynow & than .. RAM DISK would disappear - totally gone like it it didnt exist !!

I did corrospond with RamDisk pple via email and they seem to NOT HAVE tested their software via X64 XP Pro at the time and I never heard from them again.

Ramdisk in 'windows' is pretty sweet app - not far from UNIX /Linux loading whole Apps into "memory"...


hope this help
enjoying the MalMO sunny coast.....workingon 'uders' & spelling

Hi again Aussie in Sweden

Well. As of today with x64 OS's, XP, Vista or W7 and with these huge amounts of ram we can get, the feature with Ramdisk is outdated. It's much better used in 32-bit OS's. Actually, I don't know why, but the W7x64 setup in T61p with 4GB and only with a mere 256MB pagefile on a Seagate Momentus XT is faster than the setup on Z61p, XP 32bit/X86, 4GB.

Thanks. I have it from you then. A T60p can recognize 8GB. I thought than wasn't possible with the Merom/945 types of machinery. Only from T61x and up. Clearly that will be considered when prices over time are lowered. I tend to use my machines for as long as possible.

You spell like a broken arm, but it's fun. Actually my initial thoughts were: "This guy is loaded. Loaded with beer". But it's a permanent thing, I guess. Beer in the morning. Beer in the afternoon. Beer around the clock. Just kiddin'.

Just hit the User Control Panel on top of this page and alter your settings, if your want to change the Dwonurde, DownRurd.......[censored].......DownUder-thing

Back to topic:

Redoing the experiment:

T60-class machine, T60, T60p, Z61, Z61p.
4GB Ram.
Ramdisk 1GB for pagefile.
Disable any other pagefile on harddrive.

What are your results, when you look at Commit Charge Limit in Taskmanager ?

[edit] Been around for 6 years+ and still a Freshman member.

You could retry your 4G setup, using this ramdrive:

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and- ... re/ramdisk


Very nice product. Smaller ramdrive is free w/no registration, big ramdrive is free but requires registration, which is no problem.

I expect the effect you're seeing is due to the trickery of the RAMDISK emulating the hard drive where you have placed your pagefile.
Windows would not "see" this when it calculated the Commit Limit figure, so it would take the usable RAM (3GB) and add in the pagefile (1GB), hence 4GB.

When you say you're using all of the 4GB can that actually be verified by the total of all the active working sets within the system at any time, plus the system cache, plus the kernel etc etc etc.

In this very moment, the Z61p is using:

Commit Charge (K)
Total: 3700000 (it's hovering around this figure)
Limit: 3993616
Peak: 3713256

Even if Windows XP is somewhat "confused" by the trickery of the RAMDISK, I find it hard to believe that it could use more than 3GB. I've also just checked Diskdefragmenter. There's no pagefile on the harddrive.

Ah but that's the problem with the Commit figures ...
Unless they've changed it (recently), commiting virtual storage does not mean that the storage is actually allocated on the pagefile. It indicates to the virtual storage manager that it's guaranteed to be backed (by a pagefile slot) at some point, For example, allocate 2 pages (8k) and then commit them. At this point, the page tables have been updated to map the two pages but neither has real storage or pagefile space for them actaully been allocated. Now, move data into the first 80 bytes and the first page is allocated physically (to a real frame) but still isn't on the pagefile. Do nothing for a bit on a busy system and that frame gets stolen and placed on the pagefile. During all this, you've only ever been using 4K either as a real frame or a pagefile slot yet the commit charge would be 8K.

OOpa ,, Ash* beat me to it > excellent explination(s)
(i wouldnt have done better ,,,, caus of me POOR ENgrish AND SPELLiinG >lol) hope this keeps the spelling nazi's happy i hope!!

Hiya DK*
Sorry I dont have that T60 now - plus I tired the RAMDISK way back in 2006 or something!
and things have moved on kinda fast from there - now I have Tps with 32 & 64GB RAM on
\'custom bios' and CUSTOM RAM ! > so dont really need RAMDISK

One thing I do remember - if you have eg 4GB RAM , I would only place like 800-900MB in RAMDISK in a X32 WIN OS..... when I did that it seemed that the RAMDISK was much much more stable.

As far as 'Pagefile' err ,,, I never really worried too much about when and how 'windows' did its calculations etc ,,,a s I NEVER HAD ANY !!!

Cheers mate ,,,,,,,,,,,, am off to Helsinki and LapLand weekend !

Thank you ashleys.

I opened almost everything on the computer, IE multiple tabs, Firefox, Opera, Photoshop with a 900MB PSD-file, WMP, WME, TTS-software and it hammered up to 3.5GB in round figures.
I understand your explanation with the "commitment" of the Commit Charge and the commitment, without being nessecarily used.

Would it mean, that instead of dealing with a 1GB pagefile on 1GB RAMDISK, the system performance would benefit from minimizing the pagefile/RAMDISK construction, leaving more RAM to be free'ed or does that have any influence ?
Anyhow, you say, that no matter how I interpretate the 3.99GB, the actual figure is in the 3.00GB area, plus/minus ?

Is there any software around that can do a checkup on the actual usable/adressable memory other than looking at the Commit Charge ?

ausmike wrote: Hiya DK*
...
One thing I do remember - if you have eg 4GB RAM , I would only place like 800-900MB in RAMDISK in a X32 WIN OS..... when I did that it seemed that the RAMDISK was much much more stable
...
As far as 'Pagefile' err ,,, I never really worried too much about when and how 'windows' did its calculations etc ,,,a s I NEVER HAD ANY !!!

Cheers mate ,,,,,,,,,,,, am off to Helsinki and LapLand weekend !

I'm having no issues with the stability of the RAMDISK. It's just rocksolid. Whammo

I think I need some additional software to determine whether it's 3.99GB or 3.00GB the system is capable of using.

Lapland. Don't drink too much. You'll end up with one of your parts inside a reindeer
Happy journey and do return safely.

Thanks AusMike ... I assumed that you did know but were just being modest and allowing a lesser mortal such as myself to explain

Regarding the pagefile, well you could spend a whole lifetime reading various levels of nonsense about it on the Web

The best argument for a pagefile on disk is the same for all virtual storage operating systems, they're designed to work that way. The pagefile is for pages that are not currently active or required. By placing your pagefile in RAM or having no pagefile at all, you are forcing the system to use your most precious resource (RAM) with chunks of data that are not being actively used.

On a lightly/medium loaded desktop system this argument is obvioulsy a little less clear cut as you may hardly ever page anyway. However, on large server based systems, you can tolerate some paging just to keep the active multi-tasking level high enough.

The Task Manager displays have always been a bit poor. On the processes tab you can view figures like VM size and Mem Usage but they cannot be added together, as one contains part of the other. I haven't had a good look at the Resource Monitor in Windows 7 which may have some better figures.

Knowing next to nothing of the issue being discussed would it be a valid experiment to make a 3gb ram drive and see if windows can use the remaining 1gb? I presume that if the ramdrive has a filesystem on it windows would not be able to use it if the page file is not written onto that drive. I cannot make such a test as my t60 has 2gb of memory.

Would this kind of an experiment have any benefit (well pros & cons) on my T61 C2D with 4G on XP Pro 32 bit?

hki wrote:Knowing next to nothing of the issue being discussed would it be a valid experiment to make a 3gb ram drive and see if windows can use the remaining 1gb? I presume that if the ramdrive has a filesystem on it windows would not be able to use it if the page file is not written onto that drive. I cannot make such a test as my t60 has 2gb of memory.

Great idea. In that case, the system shouldn't work, if the 3GB pagefile is taking everything, and if it works, the system are using 4GB

[edit-1] The 3GB RAMDISK experiment is about to be executed. I'll report back in a couple of minutes. Hold on.

[edit-2] Well. An error occured at startup. Windows didn't load properly.
[HKEY-Local.Machine]-[SYSTEM]-[CurrentControlSet]-[Services]-[RRamdisk]-[Parameters]-DiskSizeM
DiskSizeM changed from 1024 to 3000 (Megabytes)

I'll try 2048, just for the fun of it and to see what Taskmanager reports. Hold on

crashnburn wrote:Would this kind of an experiment have any benefit (well pros & cons) on my T61 C2D with 4G on XP Pro 32 bit?

I don't know. It's working fine here, with the exception of, I think I'm believing the system is using 4GB.
I see a Commit Charge Limit of 3.99GB in Taskmanager. When I'm filling the memory up with open programs until it's about to drown, the load is around 3.5-3.6GB.

Apparently the system commits itself to use 4GB with this setup, but ashleys' saying that it's not using it.

Experiments back and forth.

With a 2GB Ramdisk. 1GB pagefile and 1GB free space on Ramdisk.
Commit Charge reports this just after boot:

Total: 2950000
Limit: 4000000
Peak: 3200000

I've just changed the size of the pagefile to 2GB on the 2GB Ramdisk, Commit Charge reports:

Total: 2970000
Limit: 5020000
Peak: 3200000

Well, this clarifies certainly that Windows is reporting the physical 3GB + pagefile being the limits of commitment.
Ashleys is right. There's no way 5GB of memory actually can be used.

On the other hand, I'll keep the 1GB Ramdisk/Pagefile setting. It works absolutely flawlessly. I'd perhaps lower the darn thing to 512MB, to have some more free usable RAM.

Shame on Lenovo for limiting this series of notebooks to 3GB. What's the point in doing that. It's like being in North Korea for crying out loud.

Thereby said: Mystery solved

DK6400Brian wrote:Shame on Lenovo for limiting this series of notebooks to 3GB. What's the point in doing that.

Chipset uses 32bit memory controller, so it is limited to 4GB of addressable space. Some addresses need to be reserved for devices, and to avoid conflicts there has to be set a limit on maximum addressable RAM. It was chosen to be hardcoded to 3GB, although it could probably be somewhere between 2.75 and 3.25 for most cases, but it wouldn't make a big difference...

Great effort on the testing chaps

dr_st wrote:Chipset uses 32bit memory controller, so it is limited to 4GB of addressable space. Some addresses need to be reserved for devices, and to avoid conflicts there has to be set a limit on maximum addressable RAM. It was chosen to be hardcoded to 3GB, although it could probably be somewhere between 2.75 and 3.25 for most cases, but it wouldn't make a big difference...

I understand that, but then...don't we have Windows to sort all of this out ? In device manager there's a lot of automatic ressource/IRQ settings.
With a 4GB system, in my private layman terms I see the graphic ram 256MB filling up some addressable space in the 4GB area, so in the end, with other devices, I understand the usable ram could probably reach 3.25-3,5 GB.

It wouldn't make the greatest difference, I understand.
A SSD would clearly lift a T60/Z61 type of machinery much more than a ½GB RAM.

ashleys wrote:Great effort on the testing chaps

Thanks.
Knocking on RAM-Heavens doors has been a hobby ever since I drewled for a 32MB LIM-EMS 4.0 8-bit ISA for the PC/XT.
Too bad I'm not truly educated like the hardcore guys, but feeling ones way through, sometime leaves drops of honey on the fingertips.

DK6400Brian wrote:
On the other hand, I'll keep the 1GB Ramdisk/Pagefile setting. It works absolutely flawlessly. I'd perhaps lower the darn thing to 512MB, to have some more free usable RAM.

How is this any different than not using any RAMDisk/Pagefile, and setting the Pagefile size to zero?

You get 3GB usable total memory either way and no swapping to disk, right?

Why would I want to move things in memory just to move them around?

Well, personaly I've experienced some instability with having no pagefile at all.
Someone have to give you a better explanation, but my "thing" about it is, that programs tend to like having a pagefile to dig the sh** into. Pardon my French.
Of course it can be minimized and perhaps even excluded, but when I look in the tab [Processes] in Taskmanager and if I select VM-size, all programs just love that pagefile. I just don't want to cut that off.

[size=85]....Well I survived the Lapland.... very nice in summer > and "brassmonkies" , come to mind - for winter time visit there >LOL<[/size]
* Come on Be BRAVE, drop that 'pagefile' and stick in those32GB chips and see what happens - you might be surprised!

* Actually I found out (when I used to use the T6x Series machine) the BIOS = HUGE FILE = cause of number of 'inclusions' IBM did have on that BIOS FILE to cater for IBM-Linux; Windows and other OS etc > Usually BIOS "has EXCLUDE LIST" so that you cannot ADD items that are NON IBM/LENOVO P/N-FRU's.....


Cheers mate