Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Mapped File memory


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1
epic

epic

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Joined 13-January 05

Is there any way to force Windows 8 / 8.1 to force a mapped file from memory?

 

I know it's possible using a 3rd party app like Mem Reduct or Wise Memory Optimizer. I guess the real question is why can't Windows actively do this on its own? If a file is not in use, then why hog system resources?

 

 




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
shae

shae

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts
  • Joined 06-July 08
The file is cached until the memory is needed for something else (or when Windows decides to vacate it for whatever reason), so accessing again the same data will be quick. There's no point in keeping memory empty.

#3
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

post a picture of RAMMap which shows how much and which memory mapped files you have.

 

http://technet.micro...s/ff700229.aspx


Posted Image

#4
epic

epic

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Joined 13-January 05

The file is cached until the memory is needed for something else (or when Windows decides to vacate it for whatever reason), so accessing again the same data will be quick. There's no point in keeping memory empty.

 

Another lame, uneducated Microsoft excuse... this was true when Memory was a scarce resource, as well as R/W speeds of mechanical HDD, not so much today and redundent. Just willful ignorance. There is absolutely no need for any application(s) to be cached into ram these days with the speed of SSD and Memory. Memory ought to be cleared immediatly after the program is no longer needed, or idle. I wouldn't mind Windows using as much memory as it does if I had 8GB of memory, or more, but that's BESIDE the point! I can run Ubuntu or other systems with far LESS memory usage than what Windows does, unfortuneately, but I'm stuck with Windows as most of my apps require the OS.

 

@MagicAndre, I usually use Rammap and PE to isolate issues. I'll post Rammap when I get a chance. Though, I'm not sure what your intention of me posting an image is, as the system is not infected and has bare minumal applications running at startup. Still W8.1, or earlier, tend to use more memory than they ought to... W8.1 for example, upon boot uses up nearly 1.6GB>greater durectly after boot. Ridiculous. Once I clear mapped files I'll get it down to 1.1GB.

 

Windows should be actively scanning Windows and purging memory when an application / service is idle or no longer needed. If an application explicitly requires more memory, the memory will always be there, no need for anything to be cached unless it is an "active" process.


Edited by epic, 19 May 2014 - 01:31 PM.


#5
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Um, RAM access is still light years faster than I/O, even with things like SSD.

 

A good system will access RAM at 50 gigabytes per second.  An SSD array can sustain speeds like 1 or 2 gigabytes per second.  Both are fast, but one is blindingly faster.  People in the know use RAM caches all the time to speed operations up.

 

I'd say you're worrying about what you're seeing in Task Manager et. al. a bit too much.  It's not a lame excuse - Windows really does try to use the RAM for useful things like speeding up the file system instead of letting it just sit there waiting for you to use it, and the processes to release it and make it available for application use are not expensive.  It's no longer simple, and it really does work.

 

Perhaps rather than insulting people who try to explain things, you might want to describe what it is that's going slowly for you or that you can't do given the mix of operations you're performing and hardware you have.  Perhaps someone can offer an innovative suggestion.  I believe that's what Andre is trying to help you with.  I can't think of anyone better to help you lower your RAM footprint with SPECIFIC suggestions than Andre.

 

Don't get me wrong, I try to run as lean a system as I can, though some things - such as speeding up I/O access - I'm willing to optimize with bunches of RAM.  There's nothing like a system that just responds instantly and doesn't bog down no matter how much stuff you start.  I have such a system.

 

Your best bet is to watch Autoruns like a hawk and can anything that you don't need running.

 

Last but not least, computer hardware really is cheaper than ever.  Anyone trying to do serious work on a computer and finding themselves short of RAM resources is a bit short-sighted.  More powerful hardware costs more, sure, but nowadays you can get more of that hardware than ever for pennies.  RAM has not been "I can't afford it" expensive for a long time.  It's still less than $10 a gigabyte!  Yes, I realize some systems can't be easily upgraded.  Sometimes you have to bite the bullet and modernize the whole computer.

 

-Noel


Edited by NoelC, 20 May 2014 - 06:45 AM.


#6
TELVM

TELVM

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 305 posts
  • Joined 09-February 12
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Um, RAM access is still light years faster than I/O, even with things like SSD.

 

A good system will access RAM at 50 gigabytes per second.  An SSD array can sustain speeds like 1 or 2 gigabytes per second.  Both are fast, but one is blindingly faster.  People in the know use RAM caches all the time to speed operations up ...

 

^ Word!

 

crKxByMK.gif

 

kLjkMZmq.png



#7
epic

epic

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Joined 13-January 05

Um, the entire point of the post is that Windows DOES NOT manage memory as it ought to, and it should without a 3rd party application to do it. Developers should also be concerend about optimizing their applications.

 

I never stated RAM was inferior than SSD or mechanical drives as some are assuming, and the notion that memory is "cheap" is the grand notion that developer are too **** lazy to optimize an Operating System or their applications. I dread to see the day, and it will happen, a developer will claim that their application requires 64Gb of memory, when it could and can operate at 2/3rds the amount at peak performance. Also, I'm not insuling anyone personally, I'm insulting the fact that developers continuelly throw down to Microsofts lazyness and willful ignorance. No one liked Steve Jobs because he was basically an asshat, but he also got s*** done and fired incompetent developers who made claims "it's just how it is.." or "it can't be done.." blah. Microsoft ought to be stepping up to the plate, and people and government shouldn't just accepting bul*****.

 

For example DWM.exe... it operates fine around 6mb of memory after I clear the cache it will creep up to 18mb of memory (all the junk inside the app), same with some other services, but the major complaint are useless items as DWM.exe and Windows Store apps that are COMPLETELY useless and unnecessary. As I stated before and continue to state.. touch features, windows store, and the like ought to be an OPTION for users to install.. it should not be forced into the users lap. Microsoft should provide a bare minimal modern OS to users and provide the consumer the option to add certain features (without additional charges), NOT load it with bloatware. Over three-quarters of the services and applications on any given Windows OS are useless and will never see the time of day to the average consumer, not only some advanced users. If we want or need a feature at any given time, we could install it, then remove it when it is not needed, yet that option is NOT there. Thats the beauty of nix machines, they're also capable of managing memory far better than WIndows.

 

Perhaps I am worried about what TaskManager is showing for free memory too, but that really diminishes when I attempt to load a specific application and won't load because there isn't enough free memory, when in fact there is, but Windows services and applications are hogging system resources. The problem vanishes the minute I clear memory from active and standby. Sure, I could go out and purchase more memory, but that is besides the point. In essence, that thought process is no different than. oh..  lets just repair the broken water pipe with some ducktape, duketape will hold, eventually it'll begin to leak and perhaps cuase more issues. Instead of actually replacing the damaged pipe.

 

Anyway, here is my RamMap screenshots. The first two screenshots is 5 minutes after a reboot at Idle (WMO + Rammap). Third screenshot is after I empty / clear memory using RamMap, give. Fourth screenshot is clearing memory using MemRect.

 

Wise Memory Optimizer loads on startup. Provides GUI dynamic graph of memory usage, upon startup it spikes to about 3.2GB of system memory, then gradually down to 1.9Gb roughly.

30ddtgg.jpg

 

RamMap #1 (10 minutes after reboot, idle)

2ptryoi.jpg

 

RamMap #2 (Empty / Clear memory , screenshot 10 minutes after)

fbw4eu.jpg

 

RamMap #3 (MemRect Clear memory, screenshot 10 minutes after)

11r3n77.jpg

 

 

 

The last two screenshots display a perfect example of how poorly Windows manages memory.


Edited by epic, 22 May 2014 - 07:34 AM.


#8
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

what's the point? By clearing the standby (Superfetch catch) you slowdown the Windows if you don't have a fast SSD. Windows works fine, you simply have no knowledge how Windows works.

 

Buy and read this book:

 

http://technet.micro...s/bb963901.aspx

(2nd Part includes Memory Management)


Posted Image

#9
epic

epic

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 395 posts
  • Joined 13-January 05

what's the point? By clearing the standby (Superfetch catch) you slowdown the Windows if you don't have a fast SSD. Windows works fine, you simply have no knowledge how Windows works.

 

Buy and read this book:

 

http://technet.micro...s/bb963901.aspx

(2nd Part includes Memory Management)

 

No knowledge? Whatever. You clearly miss the point.



#10
MagicAndre1981

MagicAndre1981

    after Windows 7 GA still Vista lover :)

  • Patrons
  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined 28-August 05
  • OS:Vista Ultimate x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

no, you don't understand how Windows works and ask a useless question.


Posted Image

#11
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Epic, that you feel you have a memory problem implies that you simply don't have enough RAM to meet your computing needs.

 

I can assure you that there is a number that is "enough" memory for pretty much anyone.

 

What is the monetary difference between what you have and what would be "enough".  Can you work for a few extra hours to make the extra money to buy it?  Problem solved.  You'll thank yourself for it forever more, every time you try to use your system and it responds smoothly.

 

-Noel






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users