DisablePagingExecutive
in [Windows Performance]
|
Prev: SVCHost.exe - Application Error
Next: 100 % CPU Usage
From: Cantoris on 13 Sep 2006 11:55 I'm interested in making use of the registry hack DisablePagingExecutive=1 in [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]. ("This entry specifies whether user-mode and kernel-mode drivers and kernel-mode system code can be paged to disk when not in use. If the value of this entry is 1, the drivers and kernel must remain in physical memory.") I can't find any clear guidance on how much system RAM is deemed sufficient for this setting to be safely used. Also, how much physical RAM will actually get tied up by this process on average? Is there any way to measure how much a particular system is using for these drivers and Kernel? Thanks for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Andrew
From: Ted Zieglar on 13 Sep 2006 13:43 Ask your question in a hacker newsgroup. --- Ted Zieglar "Backup is a computer user's best friend." Cantoris wrote: > I'm interested in making use of the registry hack DisablePagingExecutive=1 in > [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory > Management]. > ("This entry specifies whether user-mode and kernel-mode drivers and > kernel-mode system code can be paged to disk when not in use. If the value of > this entry is 1, the drivers and kernel must remain in physical memory.") > > I can't find any clear guidance on how much system RAM is deemed sufficient > for this setting to be safely used. Also, how much physical RAM will > actually get tied up by this process on average? Is there any way to measure > how much a particular system is using for these drivers and Kernel? > > Thanks for any help you can offer. > > Best wishes, > > Andrew
From: Alec S. on 13 Sep 2006 17:31 "Ted Zieglar" <teddy.z(a)news.invalid> wrote in message news:OLaH4w11GHA.4176(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Ask your question in a hacker newsgroup. > > Cantoris wrote: > > I'm interested in making use of the registry hack DisablePagingExecutive=1 > >. > > I can't find any clear guidance on how much system RAM is deemed sufficient > > for this setting to be safely used. Also, how much physical RAM will > > actually get tied up by this process on average? Is there any way to measure > > how much a particular system is using for these drivers and Kernel? > > > > Thanks for any help you can offer. Sorry about that "advice" you were given, this is indeed a Windows XP performance related question and thus is perfectly valid here. While that entry is mainly used by servers, it does have the potential to increase performance for workstations as well. Like you said, you would need enough memory but Windows does not usually make full use of physical RAM anyway, so you'll probably have enough. The common literature on it says that you should have a minimum of 256MB (I think that's XP's minimum in general, so it's not a good idea) but 512MB is the recommended minimum. Of course if you have 1GB or more then you should be fine (even better than fine if it enhances your system.) The thing to keep in mind is that Windows does not come preconfigured to be as optimal as possible (that is literally impossible with the boundless number of hardware combinations). It comes set up to be optimal enough for most people's use. Also, speed and stability are at odds with each other, so Windows tends to lean towards stability when possible. Thus a fresh installation of Windows will not necessarily be as fast as it can be. Some people say that "hacks" are pointless and don't give any substantial benefit while increasing problems. While some can cause problems, some CAN give substantial performance gains. The ones that do give the best increase are well documented and well known, so you will easily be able to identify the ones you should bother with. HTH -- Alec S. news/alec->synetech/cjb/net
From: Cantoris on 13 Sep 2006 17:47 Thank you very much Alec for your very helpful reponse - it's nice to know at least someone actually reads and understands a post properly before hitting reply! I'm going to try out this hack on some of our >=512MB PCs and see whether it has a measurable effect. I hope the theoretical performance gain in the OS is not met by a performance loss in apps! Thanks again! Best wishes, Andrew
From: Alec S. on 13 Sep 2006 21:24
"Cantoris" <Cantoris(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:E187E724-6C44-4B80-9698-085571B54DB8(a)microsoft.com... > I'm going to try out this hack on some of our >=512MB PCs and see whether it > has a measurable effect. I hope the theoretical performance gain in the OS > is not met by a performance loss in apps! I'm trying it out right now (plus a few other tweaks). Like I said, Windows does not use all available physical memory (it rarely ever even comes close.) One way to force Windows to use more physical memory and less virtual (disk) is to reduce the swap file size. Some people have even suggested eliminating it altogether but that can cause problems or even prevent boot up at all. I'm going to try reducing my swap file now. -- Alec S. news/alec->synetech/cjb/net |