Rich Wertz
May 22nd 04, 02:34 PM
Ron,
I have done just what you said not to do with my virtual
memory. I have run into the problems that you described
shortly after "never, repeat, never" in your reply. I
hang my head in shame, and humbly ask for your help in
resotring my virtual memory to 'let windows manage virtual
memory'
As i have purged the knowledge on how to change it, I
can't seem to recall how to change it back.
Thank you for your help in advance, and thanks for the
previously ignored, but good nontheless, advise.
Regards,
Rich
>-----Original Message-----
>"kirk.johnson" > wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>Where do you read a dictate to the management of the max
swap file? I see
>>words like "I personally believe" and "rule of thumb"
not telling people
>>that they have to do it. You know what works for you
might not work for
>>others. I do not claim to have an undisputed
understanding of all of the
>>nuances of this aging OS but the article has helped more
than half a million
>>visitors since I put it online almost 4 years ago. And
even more when it was
>>reprinted in the IBM quarterly.
>
>
>Never repeat never specify a maximum size limit for
Virtual Memory in
>Windows 9x. There is no benefit that can ever be
achieved by doing
>so. The only possible outcomes, in order of decreasing
probability
>and increasing severity, are:
>- Reduced performance as your system reduces disk cache
in order to
>meet the total memory needs of your loaded applications
and data
>files.
>- Applications refusing to load due to "insufficient
memory" errors.
>- Applications crashing due to "out of memory" errors
resulting in
>loss of data and possible corruption of data files.
>- Total system lockups or crashes due to "out of memory"
errors
>resulting in loss of data and possible file corruption.
>
>All of the benefits purportedly achieved by having a
fixed or
>permanent swap file can in fact be obtained by specifying
a minimum
>size only.
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>--
>Microsoft MVP
>On-Line Help Computer Service
>http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
>"The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
>.
>
I have done just what you said not to do with my virtual
memory. I have run into the problems that you described
shortly after "never, repeat, never" in your reply. I
hang my head in shame, and humbly ask for your help in
resotring my virtual memory to 'let windows manage virtual
memory'
As i have purged the knowledge on how to change it, I
can't seem to recall how to change it back.
Thank you for your help in advance, and thanks for the
previously ignored, but good nontheless, advise.
Regards,
Rich
>-----Original Message-----
>"kirk.johnson" > wrote:
>
>>Ron,
>>Where do you read a dictate to the management of the max
swap file? I see
>>words like "I personally believe" and "rule of thumb"
not telling people
>>that they have to do it. You know what works for you
might not work for
>>others. I do not claim to have an undisputed
understanding of all of the
>>nuances of this aging OS but the article has helped more
than half a million
>>visitors since I put it online almost 4 years ago. And
even more when it was
>>reprinted in the IBM quarterly.
>
>
>Never repeat never specify a maximum size limit for
Virtual Memory in
>Windows 9x. There is no benefit that can ever be
achieved by doing
>so. The only possible outcomes, in order of decreasing
probability
>and increasing severity, are:
>- Reduced performance as your system reduces disk cache
in order to
>meet the total memory needs of your loaded applications
and data
>files.
>- Applications refusing to load due to "insufficient
memory" errors.
>- Applications crashing due to "out of memory" errors
resulting in
>loss of data and possible corruption of data files.
>- Total system lockups or crashes due to "out of memory"
errors
>resulting in loss of data and possible file corruption.
>
>All of the benefits purportedly achieved by having a
fixed or
>permanent swap file can in fact be obtained by specifying
a minimum
>size only.
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>--
>Microsoft MVP
>On-Line Help Computer Service
>http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
>"The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
>.
>