From: Grumps on
I'm trying to work out what parts of my Windows PC's memory are free.
You know when you do computer_management->disk_defragmenter->analyze, you
get a graphical representation of where your files are on your HD. Is there
anything similar for the memory? So I can see what's put where.


From: Brian Cryer on
"Grumps" <not(a)here.com> wrote in message
news:7v4q0hFk3tU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> I'm trying to work out what parts of my Windows PC's memory are free.
> You know when you do computer_management->disk_defragmenter->analyze, you
> get a graphical representation of where your files are on your HD. Is
> there anything similar for the memory? So I can see what's put where.

Its not quite so meaningful with memory because Windows can move things
around.

Possibly the closest meaningful information you can get out is from using
TaskManager, on the "Processes" tab you can change the columns to show the
amount of memory used, or working set size or a few other options. Or you
may find that "Process Explorer"
(http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx) gives
similar information but somehow presented that much better.

However, these tools will just show you how much memory a process is using,
not where in the (logical or physical) address space it happens to be
situated (which may change anyway).

Alternatively, there used to be tools around which claimed to defragment
your memory (yet to be convinced this is anything but smoke and mirrors at
best) but some of those might give you the type of graphical view I'm
guessing you are after.

Hope ths helps.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian


From: GT on
"Grumps" <not(a)here.com> wrote in message
news:7v4q0hFk3tU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> I'm trying to work out what parts of my Windows PC's memory are free.
> You know when you do computer_management->disk_defragmenter->analyze, you
> get a graphical representation of where your files are on your HD. Is
> there anything similar for the memory? So I can see what's put where.

Brian's answer covers all the points you need to know, but why you want to
know which bits of RAM are being used. Are you experiencing problems or
crashes - wondering if certain memory areas are failing? Memtest will test
out your RAM for you.


From: Grumps on
GT wrote:
> "Grumps" <not(a)here.com> wrote in message
> news:7v4q0hFk3tU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> I'm trying to work out what parts of my Windows PC's memory are free.
>> You know when you do
>> computer_management->disk_defragmenter->analyze, you get a graphical
>> representation of where your files are on your HD. Is there anything
>> similar for the memory? So I can see what's put where.
>
> Brian's answer covers all the points you need to know, but why you
> want to know which bits of RAM are being used. Are you experiencing
> problems or crashes - wondering if certain memory areas are failing?
> Memtest will test out your RAM for you.

I have a piece of hardware that does big DMA (>128MB), and needs this size
of contiguous memory. When the driver is called to lock this block, it
fails. I was just wondering if we could prove that this size of contig
memory was present, then we could bash the driver author to correct his
code.


From: kony on
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:08:13 -0000, "Grumps" <not(a)here.com>
wrote:

>GT wrote:
>> "Grumps" <not(a)here.com> wrote in message
>> news:7v4q0hFk3tU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> I'm trying to work out what parts of my Windows PC's memory are free.
>>> You know when you do
>>> computer_management->disk_defragmenter->analyze, you get a graphical
>>> representation of where your files are on your HD. Is there anything
>>> similar for the memory? So I can see what's put where.
>>
>> Brian's answer covers all the points you need to know, but why you
>> want to know which bits of RAM are being used. Are you experiencing
>> problems or crashes - wondering if certain memory areas are failing?
>> Memtest will test out your RAM for you.
>
>I have a piece of hardware that does big DMA (>128MB), and needs this size
>of contiguous memory. When the driver is called to lock this block, it
>fails. I was just wondering if we could prove that this size of contig
>memory was present, then we could bash the driver author to correct his
>code.

Memory is not direct mapped anymore. You didn't mention
what OS this is failing on but here's a start:


http://www.ixora.com.au/notes/virtual_memory.htm

IMO, you can assume a buggy driver, remember it is the
driver that fails to do what it supposedly needs to.