bad memory management

First of I'd like to point out that this is not one of those other complaints about Vista using much memory, rather I've observed some behavior of Vista that I find a bit odd.
After having been running vista for some 5 days now (since last remote that is) with my normal usage patterns and with the applications I usually run (1) my memory-consumption (Commit Charge) has risen to about 1.5GB. However summing up the memory used by all running processes gives me only some 370MB which means that the rest is used by file-caches and what not (2).
Now as I said I'm using this computer as I usually do but under XP the memory-usage never reached this high during normal operation. At it's highest it would go to some 7-800MB. Considering that Visa uses more memory in general (more features and all the debug-code etc) I'm aware that I can not expect the same (not yet at least). But now we are talking about a memory consumption twice as big as XP's, and most of it is not applications.
I've heard somewhere that Vista is supposed to release memory used by caches and such when it is needed by other applications (as any sensible OS would do) however in my opinion it does not do it fast enough.
Since I only have 1BG or RAM that means that 1/3 of all virtual memory resides on a pagefile and I'm experiencing a very noticeable slowdown of the system: it becomes sluggish when switching between applications, especially after the computer has been idle for a long while. I suppose this is because the unused applications gets swapped out in favor of file-caches for files transfered over the network (this computer serves files to other computers in the house in addition to being my main computer for daily usage).
So my question is if anyone else has experienced (what I'd call) an abnormal amount of memory consumed by non-application data? Does anyone have an explanation of this behavior?
1. I use Vista as my primary computer and all my daily computer-usage is done one Vista, after all I'm evaluating the OS I'll be using after XP. (And yes I'm aware that this might not be the best of ideas but I've got my back covered with backups etc.)
2. http://www.itstud.chalmers.se/~eriwik/Vista1.PNG
-- Erik Wikström

I am using Vista on a Gateway laptop with 512 mb of Ram and a very slow HD. It really helps if you go into the control panel and shut off all the eye candy. Also make sure you set performance for programs. I can say my laptop's performance isn't entirely bad. Ok, I'm running an AMD mobile Athalon 3500+ cpu, so it's fast anyway. I will eventually add another gig of ram and a fast hd.
"Erik Wikström" wrote in message

First of I'd like to point out that this is not one of those other complaints about Vista using much memory, rather I've observed some behavior of Vista that I find a bit odd.
After having been running vista for some 5 days now (since last remote that is) with my normal usage patterns and with the applications I usually run (1) my memory-consumption (Commit Charge) has risen to about 1.5GB. However summing up the memory used by all running processes gives me only some 370MB which means that the rest is used by file-caches and what not (2).
Now as I said I'm using this computer as I usually do but under XP the memory-usage never reached this high during normal operation. At it's highest it would go to some 7-800MB. Considering that Visa uses more memory in general (more features and all the debug-code etc) I'm aware that I can not expect the same (not yet at least). But now we are talking about a memory consumption twice as big as XP's, and most of it is not applications.
I've heard somewhere that Vista is supposed to release memory used by caches and such when it is needed by other applications (as any sensible OS would do) however in my opinion it does not do it fast enough.
Since I only have 1BG or RAM that means that 1/3 of all virtual memory resides on a pagefile and I'm experiencing a very noticeable slowdown of the system: it becomes sluggish when switching between applications, especially after the computer has been idle for a long while. I suppose this is because the unused applications gets swapped out in favor of file-caches for files transfered over the network (this computer serves files to other computers in the house in addition to being my main computer for daily usage).
So my question is if anyone else has experienced (what I'd call) an abnormal amount of memory consumed by non-application data? Does anyone have an explanation of this behavior?
1. I use Vista as my primary computer and all my daily computer-usage is done one Vista, after all I'm evaluating the OS I'll be using after XP. (And yes I'm aware that this might not be the best of ideas but I've got my back covered with backups etc.)
2. http://www.itstud.chalmers.se/~eriwik/Vista1.PNG
-- Erik Wikström

On 2006-07-02 17:03, pweegar wrote:

I am using Vista on a Gateway laptop with 512 mb of Ram and a very slow HD. It really helps if you go into the control panel and shut off all the eye candy. Also make sure you set performance for programs. I can say my laptop's performance isn't entirely bad. Ok, I'm running an AMD mobile Athalon 3500+ cpu, so it's fast anyway. I will eventually add another gig of ram and a fast hd.

You're missing the point, right after booting Vista and starting up my applications there is hardly any difference in performance between Vista and XP. But after running for some 5 days straight the amount of used virtual memory is 1.5GB.
Since my original post I have rebooted my computer and started up the same applications and all but the memory-usage is only 850MB. This much fits nicely in my RAM and the computer is quick and snappy.
-- Erik Wikström

That screenshot you posted shows a HUGE amount of nonpaged kernel memory. How does that number change as you see the commit charge rise? It looks to me as though that is squeezing out everything else. I think the max nonpaged pool on XP would have been 256MB, but Vista must allow a larger amount.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:28:09 +0200, Erik Wikström wrote:

First of I'd like to point out that this is not one of those other complaints about Vista using much memory, rather I've observed some behavior of Vista that I find a bit odd.
After having been running vista for some 5 days now (since last remote that is) with my normal usage patterns and with the applications I usually run (1) my memory-consumption (Commit Charge) has risen to about 1.5GB. However summing up the memory used by all running processes gives me only some 370MB which means that the rest is used by file-caches and what not (2).
Now as I said I'm using this computer as I usually do but under XP the memory-usage never reached this high during normal operation. At it's highest it would go to some 7-800MB. Considering that Visa uses more memory in general (more features and all the debug-code etc) I'm aware that I can not expect the same (not yet at least). But now we are talking about a memory consumption twice as big as XP's, and most of it is not applications.
I've heard somewhere that Vista is supposed to release memory used by caches and such when it is needed by other applications (as any sensible OS would do) however in my opinion it does not do it fast enough.
Since I only have 1BG or RAM that means that 1/3 of all virtual memory resides on a pagefile and I'm experiencing a very noticeable slowdown of the system: it becomes sluggish when switching between applications, especially after the computer has been idle for a long while. I suppose this is because the unused applications gets swapped out in favor of file-caches for files transfered over the network (this computer serves files to other computers in the house in addition to being my main computer for daily usage).
So my question is if anyone else has experienced (what I'd call) an abnormal amount of memory consumed by non-application data? Does anyone have an explanation of this behavior?
1. I use Vista as my primary computer and all my daily computer-usage is done one Vista, after all I'm evaluating the OS I'll be using after XP. (And yes I'm aware that this might not be the best of ideas but I've got my back covered with backups etc.)
2. http://www.itstud.chalmers.se/~eriwik/Vista1.PNG

It is interesting ... when I had 512mb I saw CPU and Mem utilizations for a week climb over 85%.
Upgraded to 2 gig today and now I see about 30% mem util and CPU still spikes to 100 with IE & Explorer & installs.
Will monitor for a week and report.
Things are definitely less sluggish with the added memory!
I have noticed that the sidebar reports more usage than task manager though. Not sure they are on the same page ... monitoring equally. When TM was at 2% .... sidebar was at 80%!
ed
PS If this is a repeat then it's beacause I could not post with IE7B2 ... had to use FF 1.5

On 2006-07-06 18:53, Greg Bowers wrote:

That screenshot you posted shows a HUGE amount of nonpaged kernel memory. How does that number change as you see the commit charge rise? It looks to me as though that is squeezing out everything else. I think the max nonpaged pool on XP would have been 256MB, but Vista must allow a larger amount.

Have since then restarted and the system has been up for 8 days now and the memory has stayed at more sane levels (below 1GB) and the total Kernel Memory has not risen above 128MB (divided quite nicely 50/50 pages and non-paged) since. My conclusion: some kind of freak error/bug must have caused the behavior observed last time.
-- Erik Wikström

Betas are always like that. It's no indication of how things will play out in the final product.
"Erik Wikström" wrote in message

On 2006-07-06 18:53, Greg Bowers wrote: That screenshot you posted shows a HUGE amount of nonpaged kernel memory. How does that number change as you see the commit charge rise? It looks to me as though that is squeezing out everything else. I think the max nonpaged pool on XP would have been 256MB, but Vista must allow a larger amount.
Have since then restarted and the system has been up for 8 days now and the memory has stayed at more sane levels (below 1GB) and the total Kernel Memory has not risen above 128MB (divided quite nicely 50/50 pages and non-paged) since. My conclusion: some kind of freak error/bug must have caused the behavior observed last time.
-- Erik Wikström