Another question
Iain Smith
drive to locate the VM or paging file and should I fix its value or let
Windows manage it?
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
Danny
Iain. You can even put the page file on a smart card or thumb drive.
Personally, I prefer to let windows manage the size. I had the dreaded Out
of Memory error 14 to 16 months ago after first getting my new Laptop with
Vista 32bit. Microsoft site suggested deleting the page file, reboot then
restart the page file and let windows manage the size.
I have never had a problem with OOM again.
Danny
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
news:Meudnfc9Of3-Zs3X...@bt.com...
Vic Baron
you should manage the size yourself. This is especially true with FSX as
Windows will continually be playing with the size and it will have an effect
on CPU usage. Ditto if Windows ahd to look on another drive for the VM.
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
news:Meudnfc9Of3-Zs3X...@bt.com...
TOCA
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> skrev i en meddelelse
news:Meudnfc9Of3-Zs3X...@bt.com...
I think we have a small differ in oppinions comming up here :o/
I have always heard, and will state that it's true, that you should have
Windos and programs on drive one, and page file on drive two along with
files, documents and other storrage stuff, and the file size should be
fixed.
The thumb rule of how large a page file you need, used to be 1,5x your
ammount of RAM, but with 1GB or more, you can do just fine with same size.
To make it work realy good, you should ensure that the page file is the
first thing on the drive, and not some where between all your photos and
videos. You do that by formatting the drive, move the page file over, and
then throw in every thing else afterwards, then the pagefile is on the
fastest part of the drive.
Reasons for tinkering with that file are:
1) Having the page file on one drive and the OS on an other, makes booting a
lot faster, as it leaves the system free to search and read from both
drives/files, at the same time.
2) Fixed size, because Windows can not figure out how to restrain it self
from using all the available space, which will add to the clutter.
3) Windows rarely needs more than 512MB of virtual memory, so by asigning a
full GB, you are making sure there is a buffer for big stuff, like videos
and Gigapixel photos, 2GB and you are sure not to run out on a quiet day,
but half a Terrabyte drive will make Windows waste time on searching for
those temporary files.
The reason not to waste time on the page file is: Todays hard drives with
SATA connections and GB's of buffer memory will not notice the difference.
But making it a fixed size is still a good idea.
Now can someone please tell me why we still need this rellic, from the time
when 128MB of RAM was a wet dream?
Tommy C, Denmark
Vic Baron
modern systems with 2 - 4G ram.
Faster booting maybe but faster operation of FSX or FS9 not at all.
Ideal size with 4G ram is 3072 or you could let windows manage it.
IF I understood the OP, it was in relation to FS not Windows in general. The
FS titles are CPU dependant so anything that steals CPU cycles will be
stealing them from FS. Windows is always doing background housecleaning,
if it also has to do this across drives FS suffers.
Vic
If you're tweaking for photoshop and huge files then your thinking will be
different.
It's the same thing with disk benchmarks - they are mainly sequential reads.
For a photosop type application this is good for FSX which reads hundreds of
random files this is bad.
Just depends on what your use is.
"TOCA" <n...@valid.com> wrote in message
news:4a51331a$0$15900$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Iain Smith
"Vic Baron" <vgb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yBa4m.248032$2p1.2...@en-nntp-08.dc1.easynews.com...
> IF I understood the OP, it was in relation to FS not Windows in general.
Yes Vic is correct, I was thinking of what was best for FS9. Now, as Tommy
said, we have a difference of opinion in a couple of areas. Previous
received wisdom said that if you have two drives put the OS on the main
drive and FS on the other. I can't remember the reasoning behind this now
but it made sense at the time. <g> Now Tommy is saying they should be on the
same drive but I think I'll avoid all the work necessary to do that for what
may be no noticeable improvement. :-)
Tommy struck a chord when he mentioned OOM errors and the MS advice. I had
an OOM for the first time recently and followed the same advice and haven't
had one since. I could modify this somewhat by fixing the size of the page
file but, there again, would I notice any difference?
The reason I asked this question is that, even with my new setup (Intel
Core2Duo E7400/2GB PC6400 DDR2 RAM/Geforce 9600GT 512MB/2 x 250GB SATA HDs),
which in general runs FS9 very smoothly, with frame rate at or near the
locked value of 35fps, I get the occasional stutter. I use Alacrity PC to
close down unwanted stuff but it still happens now and then for no apparent
reason. I no longer have the lag in texture filling which used to cause
stutters so I'm a little puzzled. So I'd welcome any comments on this and
thanks for your responses so far.
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
Iain Smith
never notice these mistakes until *after* I've posted?)
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
news:vOidnblP5cfIRczX...@bt.com...
TOCA
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> skrev i en meddelelse
>
>
>
> The reason I asked this question is that, even with my new setup (Intel
> Core2Duo E7400/2GB PC6400 DDR2 RAM/Geforce 9600GT 512MB/2 x 250GB SATA
> HDs), which in general runs FS9 very smoothly, with frame rate at or near
> the locked value of 35fps, I get the occasional stutter. I use Alacrity PC
> to close down unwanted stuff but it still happens now and then for no
> apparent reason. I no longer have the lag in texture filling which used to
> cause stutters so I'm a little puzzled. So I'd welcome any comments on
> this and thanks for your responses so far.
>
> --
> Iain
> Rugby, UK
First of, no human eye is able to tell the difference between 25 fps and any
thing above that, so maybe lowering your settings by 10, you might free up a
bit of computering power?
The stuttering, is that any where or just over populated areas, or in add-on
scenery areas?
It also could be AI traffic causing the stuttering, I had a lot of it on the
old rig, when I was closing in on large airports, and the AI traffic at more
than 50% :o/
Tommy C, Denmark
Vic Baron
"Iain Smith" <iainsmithdotrugbyATbtinternetdotcom> wrote in message
news:vOidnblP5cfIRczX...@bt.com...
>
The prevailing wisdom (not mine) indicates that for best performance, FS and
OS on different physical DRIVES and page file on OS drive. Second best
scenario is FS & OS on different partitions, worst case is on same drive and
partition. Don't have the link handy but there's been lots of discussions on
this at Avsim.com and simviation .com.
Vic
Tom Duhamel
> I have Win XP on my C drive and FS9 on my second drive. Which is the best
> drive to locate the VM or paging file and should I fix its value or let
> Windows manage it?
>
I've read the other messages but I reply to the original post in order
to reduce confusion, because I am going to reply to everyones at once.
Is it better to have FS and Windows on two different disks?
I don't see why it would make any difference. Assuming the disks are on
different cables (if two IDE drives connected with a single IDE cable,
they can't be accessed at once anyway -- SATA does not introduce this
problem) it would only make sense if the system has to load an OS file
and an FS file at once, which I don't think is likely to happen, at
least not very often. However, if a test proves me wrong, the difference
might be significant, since still today hard drives are bottlenecks in
our systems, as they have been since they exist.
Is it better to have the page file located on a different disk than
Windows and FS?
Again, assuming disks which are not connected on the same cable, there
is definitely an improvement in performance by doing so. If it is a disk
where the system is not going to do anything else (for example, a disk
where only MP3s and movies are stored, which the system won't be
accessing while flying) it will allow the system to retrieve files while
still using the page file, without one operation waiting for the other
one. The difference is not likely to be very apparent however, but since
every bit counts it might be one trick among others.
If Windows and FS are on different disks, where would it be better to
place the page file?
On which ever disk is less used during the current task, which in this
case, would be the Windows drive. I have not verified, so I'm still
guessing, but the FS drive is surely way more used during a flight than
the Windows drive.
Now that I've answered the basic questions, let's enter the real subject.
On a modern computer (one that was built within the last 2-3 years) all
of these questions are less important. Do you have 2 GB or RAM on your
machine? Yes? Why are you wondering where to place your page file, as it
won't be used much.
(Comments below are for XP. If you use Vista or Win 7, the terms might
be slightly different but you should find your way.)
Restart your computer (just to make sure you make the stats out of a
fresh computer), then launch FS, then have a flight. Just a regular one,
just like you do every day. Once you are done, open up the Task Manager
(Ctrl+Alt+Del), select the Performance tab, and check down under Commit
Charge. Commit Charge, despite a complicated term, is just the total
amount of memory in use by the system, physical and virtual (page file)
amounted together. Total should be labeled Current instead, it's the
amount of memory currently in use. Limit is how much memory is available
to the system (again, this is the sum of physical and virtual memory).
Peak is just what we are looking for right now, it's how much memory the
system has ever used at once since you last started the machine (that is
why I suggested you restart the computer earlier). If you have a lot of
memory, chances are that Peak is lower than your physical memory.
Windows did not need to use any page file, or did so in a minimal way
just because it was there but didn't really need it.
Of course I'm not proposing that you set no page file at all, because
there are times where you can exhaust all of your memory (starting more
applications at once, for example), and there are things Windows prefer
to place directly in the page file even if there is physical memory
left. So you could just let Windows handle it and there is little chance
that you will ever notice a difference.
If you have a machine which is less modern, or you are just a control
freak like I am, here are the tips which have always suit my needs.
Page file should be 1.5 to 3 times the size of the physical memory. Use
Task Manager to help you determine how much memory you are really using
on your machine. Setting it larger than necessary will not only waste
disk space, but will slow down seek operations by the OS when data needs
to be retrieved from there. I like to give it a fix size. So, for
example, if a machine has 512 MB of RAM, I might want to set a page file
of 768 MB to 1.5 GB, setting that value for both minimum and maximum
size, so it's fixed. If, most of the time, you use little memory, but
sometimes need a lot more, than you may set your minimum to 768 MB and
your maximum to 1.5 GB (using previous figures). Again, use Task Manager
to see your peak and determine what is best for you.
If you have a 32-bit system, don't even try to make a page file which
would make your total virtual memory over 4 GB, because that is the
limit a 32-bit system can handle.
I have 2 GB of RAM, and I have set a 2 GB page file (fixed). Since I
have only 1 drive, with two partitions, it doesn't matter which
partition I put it on, but I chose the second partition because I was
short of space on the first one. I very rarely peak at more than my
phisical memory, but I do for a few of my more demanding games (FS9 is
not one of them, perhaps FSX needs more, I don't know) and some
programing, picture and video edition tasks. If it was only for FS9, I
would have set the page file to something way smaller (like 512 MB). My
Peak indicates 1.4 GB and I have not restarted my computer for a few
days now.
Please use those advises as informative only. I am not an expert, just
someone who has spent 80% of his life in front of a machine.
Hope something in this has helped anyone
Tom :)
Iain Smith
> First of, no human eye is able to tell the difference between 25 fps and
> any thing above that, so maybe lowering your settings by 10, you might
> free up a bit of computering power?
Not too sure about that one Tommy. Whenever I have reduced my frame rate
setting I have noticed it to be less fluid/smooth to my eye. It makes me
wonder if the routine involved in limiting the rate takes resource? I've
found 30 to 35 to be about right for me.
> The stuttering, is that any where or just over populated areas, or in
> add-on scenery areas?
It's more noticeable over some add-on airports/scenery than others but can
also happen to a lesser degree over default scenery
>
> It also could be AI traffic causing the stuttering, I had a lot of it on
> the old rig, when I was closing in on large airports, and the AI traffic
> at more than 50% :o/
Yes it could be that Tommy. I'll try turning traffic to zero at one of the
airports where it's worse and see if that makes any difference. Thanks. :-)
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
Iain Smith
> The prevailing wisdom (not mine) indicates that for best performance, FS
> and OS on different physical DRIVES and page file on OS drive.
Thanks Vic. That's how I have it so that's how it'll stay. :-)
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
Chris Curtis
>
> The prevailing wisdom (not mine) indicates that for best performance, FS
> and OS on different physical DRIVES and page file on OS drive. Second best
> scenario is FS & OS on different partitions, worst case is on same drive
> and partition. Don't have the link handy but there's been lots of
> discussions on this at Avsim.com and simviation .com.
>
> Vic
But what about having a separate bootable drive just for FSX?
I've been doing it for FS9 but I've never tried the other methods.
It just makes maintenance and management so much easier.
Also I had a spare scsi drive doing nothing!
--
Chris
Milton Keynes, England
Iain Smith
"Tom Duhamel" <tom420....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h2tmth$g86$1...@aioe.org...
> Hope something in this has helped anyone
That was a very interesting and helpful post Tom. Thank you.
--
Iain
Rugby, UK
Vic Baron
"Chris Curtis" <ccu...@no.spam.please@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Uc6dnV07R8TzYs_X...@pipex.net...
In practice I always feel it's whatever works for you. I know the benchmarks
are correct but in comparable situation s, as Tom D says, you'd be hard
pressed to see the difference. However, if we're talking an old 120G IDE
drive compared to a new SATA 300G VRaptor - there is a difference you can
see.
Vic
Chris Curtis
I guess you're right Vic - perception can be a strange thing though!
I'll be using a Raptor for FSX in my new machine - bits should start
arriving this week.
A number of people suggested using a SSD for the system - I'm not that brave
yet though I have to admit the performance figures are impressive.
John Ward
Somebody on this n/g tried a SSD very early on, and wasn't at all
impressed.
I can't remember who it was.
Maybe it was very early days for SSDs when they tried it...
Regards,
John Ward
"Chris Curtis" <ccu...@no.spam.please@nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p4OdnebtKN8pJs7X...@pipex.net...
TOCA
"John Ward" <jrm...@tpg.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4a53c3f6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Hi Chris,
>
> Somebody on this n/g tried a SSD very early on, and wasn't at all
> impressed.
>
> I can't remember who it was.
>
> Maybe it was very early days for SSDs when they tried it...
>
> Regards,
> John Ward
The devellopment in SSD's has been like a rocket ride, verry fast upwards,
improving in performance almost on a daily basis. 2 years ago they were as
slow and unreliable as USB drives, maybe even slower, and their life span
was meassured in months. Todays SSD's are almost as fast as IDE drives, and
have almost as long life spans, their capassitys have rissen from a few
Megabytes to hundreds of Gigabytes, give them an other year or so, and they
will be real competitors to SATA Raptor drives. The prize tag might need an
other two years, to get down where mere deadly people might considder them
as useable.
The area where SSD's are really outstanding, is search time, no spinning
disk is even close to matching them on that field, and defragmentation is
not an issue on SSD's, they have no spin up time and they are using next to
no power, and are not generating any heat.
For portable computers, Laptops, Netbooks, etc. they are the perfect choice,
mostly because they can take the abuse of being moved arround, but for
stationary machines where heat can be ventilated away, and power is in
surplus, they are still not quite there yet.
For taking care of the OS, office programs and photoshop, they are verry
good, because of the ultra fast internal search times, but for gaming,
simming and storrage, they are too expencive and are not delivering data
fast enough to the rest of the system.
Once they become able to deliver at SATA II speed, and the prize becomes
less than twice that of spinning drives, they will be the thing to go for,
because it will bring boot up time down to half the current time, and they
will save you a ton of CO2 a year.
Tommy C, Denmark
Scatter
>
> First of, no human eye is able to tell the difference between 25 fps and any
> thing above that, so maybe lowering your settings by 10, you might free up a
> bit of computering power?
Most people can actually, it's just that 25fps is a compromise rate
used by TV. If you watch a film with a fast panning shot you'll see it
jerk - that's one reason that fast pans are rarely used in film.
As for MSFS - 25FPS is pretty comfortable as things move rather slowly
and it'll look quite smooth. It'll be different for faster paced games.
Scatter
> Yes Vic is correct, I was thinking of what was best for FS9. Now, as Tommy
> said, we have a difference of opinion in a couple of areas. Previous
> received wisdom said that if you have two drives put the OS on the main
> drive and FS on the other. I can't remember the reasoning behind this now
> but it made sense at the time. <g> Now Tommy is saying they should be on the
> same drive but I think I'll avoid all the work necessary to do that for what
> may be no noticeable improvement. :-)
The reason to have swap on a different drive to windows and your game
data is that hard drive access is SLOW and you don't want the head to
have to move to different parts of the drive to alternatively do
windows stuff and then your simming stuff. It's the same reason that
we defrag files and directories.
If a game doesn't access the hard disk during play it will have no
effect though.
John Ward
Thanks for all that info', mate - I didn't know much of it at all.
Regards,
John Ward
"TOCA" <n...@valid.com> wrote in message
news:4a53cef7$0$15874$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...