Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Windows › Is it possible to adjust Windows 7 low memory warning levels?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it possible to adjust Windows 7 low memory warning levels? - Page 4

post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ET900 View Post

Good find! Thanks for the info! I will give this a go shortly before I reinstall windows later in the month smile.gif I ended up disabling the pagefile today to test that way for a bit. Sick of having my games minimized all the time to get the low memory warning when I have 3GB+ of ram free!
Well, I had to dig for some time and do hours of reading to come across it. It isn't something that too many are discussing on the web anywhere in forums. Its usually only something that MS OS developers are concerned or interested in. That info was ultimately under a rock at the bottom of a pit of snakes in a hermetically sealed canister somewhere in a remote village town buried in a dense jungle sandwiched in a deep ravine on a hostile planet in a distant galaxy somewhere in a parallel universe.

Curious what will happen after you disable page file. Let me know if that keeps the low memory warnings from popping. My understanding is that you may get them sooner if there is no where to page low priority data in memory when more memory space in requested. Or an app will just crash without warning.

If any of this works I am just going to be so P'dOff' bout being so aggravated for two years hearing the MS horn toot so relentlessly from the 'Out of Memory' popup that I was hearing it in my sleep and interrupt my dreams of ten amazon women on a desert island not to mention all the lost sleep, years off my life and thousands of dollars spent on psychotherapy and my bald head to boot with gray sideburns this has cause me.

I just set it and rebooted before making dinner. I am using it now with 100 Chrome tabs open and am going to open 100 more to see what happens since I usually start getting the warnings around 200 open tabs. if anyone is wondering, YES, I AM a browser tab hore. Someone said once that I shouldn't have that many open. I had to explain when I am doing research I don't want to be constantly opening and closing tabs. but the truth is I keep tabs open sometimes for weeks that I don't use and am lousy at managing and bookmarking. But I fugure, if your system is capable and has enough memory, why not do what ever you want. Even have 300 open tabs.

I think the the whole Superfetch thing was a Nifty Nee-to thing that MS did that was beneficial , but then ended up screwing us all on the back end. Not to mention making it so 20 or 25% or your RAM can never be used. Who ever thought of that BS in the days of GB's of memory. That may have been fine in the days of 1GB or less but now it should be tied to a set number like 200-400MB

I will report back my findings and any possitive results or even if it didn't seam to work.

In case anyone if wondering about my previous windshield washer analogy. No, I have never pulled that prank on anyone and just thought it up for this analogy. I did however have a friend melt Vaseline on my windshield so that it looked like morning dew and when I hit the wipers in the morning ....... well you know, smear city.rolleyes.gifbiggrin.gif
Edited by Richman - 3/6/14 at 8:48am
post #32 of 37
It seams there is some very noticeable improvement. Since I never wrote down and kept a log of every detail at every moment it may take some time to know for sure and I will explain.

My Configuration Change
In my original post where the msdn article talked about changing the 2nd and 3rd value in the 'Windows Shared Section' Value data area I only changed the 3rd value as one of the articles that I left a lint to mentioned that you should only need to change this one i most instances. My was set by the system to a default 768 and I changed to 1024
I wasn't sure if this number should go up or down but from what a read, it said, 'if you have 'out of memory' warnings, you should adjust it up'

My Result thus far
This screenshot shows the 'Available' RAM in the 3700 rage after the same 100 Chrome tabs open overnight. This is the 3rd screenshot as the number dipped to 3300 and then came back up to this range.


This, as far as I recall, was out of the ordinary for my system after a reboot or reload of Chrome after a crash. The 'Available number was usually around 1500-2500. I don't know what this actually means or if this is what to expect as I am not sure if this config change is supposed to show more 'Available' or was something you never really see unless you use the MS tool on that site link to analyze the Desktop Heap usage for every Desktop.

For anyone reading this experiencing 'Out of Memory' warnings
I have tried the following

1. More RAM with NO effect
2. Readyboost with two flash drives, with NO effect.
3. Lowing the memory footprint of the most offending program (Google Chrome), with NO effect
4. Making the Page File larger, with NO effect
5. Making the Page File lower, with NO effect

Things I haven't tried
1. Disabling the Page File altogether like ET900 has since I never thought this should be necessary
2. Disabling Superfetch (even though it may work like ripping off your wiper blades) never though it should be necessary

Brings me to this conclusion
After reviewing all the data I collected, I feel this may possibly be at the heart or root of the issue since it makes compete sense. Even though I do't fully understand how Desktop Heap works (and may have to read the same tech article 5 time to better understand it) it appears to have some real potential over anything else I have come across. There tends to be other applications in this day and age that experience 'Memory Leakage' do to poor development that probably contributes to it. I am just assuming that if an app does not release unused, no longer needed memory (especially after it is closed) and Windows does not know any better, that the Desktops from those apps can still be using their portion of the Desktop Heap.

I am not a big time gamer like some here reading this but do experience the same aggravation as ..... application getting minimized when the warning pops up. It is real annoying. KMPlayer doesn't minimize, but the warning pops up in the middle of a playing video and is still annoying. Hulu will minimize though. So I understand the annoyance level and inconvenience of it all.

I will append to this post with an EDIT of my findings in the next 24-36 hours as the results should be more telling and quantifiable.
I will also post again weeks down the road if I can remember as I always leave my system on 24/7 without rebooting (which I know probably exacerbate the offending 'memory Leaking' programs and the issues they cause) and share my findings. I used to keep my XP system on 24/7 the same way and never experienced system slowdown, programs causing 'Out of memory' warnings or anything and I would keep on for months at a time, the longest time being 8-9 months. I don't remember experience the same 'Out of Memory' warning popups on XP (maybe I just don't remember them and they did happen) but that doesn't mean it didn't have the same issue as after sp3 and later version of Firefox being installed and installing Chrome, I do remember having Firefox and Chrome crashing the same way which was probably the apps or Windows thinking it was out of memory or the Desktop Heap being depleted. But then the config settings of Desktop heap depend on the version of Windows you have both number/build/codename and 32bit vs 64bit.

I may install another Windows 7 partition and play around with different setups. I suspect that maybe installing Google Chrome may mess tings up since every time I install it on a machine, the machine doesn't work quite the same or as smoothly. Could it be Chrome files interacting with other files in a negative way? It all makes me wonder.
Edited by Richman - 3/6/14 at 10:12am
post #33 of 37
Thread Starter 
Thanks for your hilarious story and efforts Richman haha biggrin.gif It is a right pain in the ass isn't it! Glad there is someone else who is on my page (what a pun). I've had no problems with the pagefile disabled so far. But I will need more time to judge this setup properly. Windows apparently just creates a pagefile on the fly if it wants/needs one (even if you've disabled it). And I'm not sure that pagefile usage monitor will give readings for that. Maybe the task manager does though. I also found a program the other day that heavily relies on pagefile - photoshop 7 (it's pretty old). But it seems that it's mainly only old programs like this that are bothered about it. My main problem is with Windows itself! I'll have nearly half my 8GB of ram free, yet it pulls me out of games crying like a little baby about low memory! I'm sick of all these writes to my ssd too. But I am going to try that excellent solution you posted before in a few weeks or so after I see how the no pagefile route goes smile.gif I too will post back with some results. But the testing may take a while..
post #34 of 37
Photoshop 7?? that sounds like new software. biggrin.gif I still have Photoshop 5 somewhere on a disk someone gave me in 2002.
I read more of another articles and re-read some and found that you can raise or lower the 2nd and 3rd value for different results. This article was the blue link "184802" ... I guess KB should be before it but it seams that MS is getting away from using the term 'Knowledge Base' for articles these days. This link takes you to an article titled "User32.dll or Kernel32.dll fails to initialize". it talks about Desktop Heap and mentions the following paragraphs that were interesting but anyone can read the whole thing i context to get an understanding of the whole thing:

The total desktop heap being used in the interactive and noninteractive window stations must fit into the 48-MB system-wide buffer.

Decreasing the second or third SharedSection values will increase the number of desktops that can be created in the corresponding window stations. Smaller values will limit the number of hooks, menus, strings, and windows that can be created within a desktop. On the other hand, increasing the second or third SharedSection values will decrease the number of desktops that can be created, but it will increase the number of hooks, menus, strings, and windows that can be created within a desktop.

Because the SCM creates a new desktop in the noninteractive window station for every service process that is running under a user account, a larger desktop value for the third SharedSection value will reduce the number of user account services that can run successfully on the system. The minimum value that can be specified for the second or third SharedSection value is 128. Any attempt to use a smaller value will default to 128.


The question is ???? What applications need more desktops for a window station and which ones need more hooks, menus ans strings. These values appear to be another one of MS's 'One-size Fits-all' type deals but depending on what type of computing you do and apps you use, this should effectively customize it for better performance. Furthermore, since everything has to fit inside of 48MB I think that may be archaic. It used to be 10, then 20 in the days of XP and now with 64bit OS's and RAM more than quadruple on average what it was then, I think it should have been 96MB or at leas 72MB.

So, In short, I asked answers.microsoft.com to create a Wiki on the subject but I am not sure any of the boneheaded MVP's there have enough knowledge to wrap there head around it. I know more about computer Technology than some of them. Probably something oe of the OS engineers would have to write.

So far so good for me but tonight I am going to rty and fill up my VM and see how it goes.
Edited by Richman - 3/7/14 at 7:06pm
post #35 of 37
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the info/update man. I'm gonna have to come back and read through your posts again when I get around to trying this. I'm still running good with no pagefile at the moment. Seems to have stopped windows complaining about low memory so far. It does ask if I want to disable the aero theme sometimes though. I wish it would stop trying to babysit me with this crap. When you tell it not to change the theme and not to give you that warning again, it still does it!

Edit: Well, it seems that with the pagefile disabled, bf4 will run like crap and sometimes crash. Even though I still have a few gb of physical ram left. So my testing tells me that it's not a good idea to disable it all together at this point in time. I will be looking into trying out your ideas in the near future.
Edited by ET900 - 3/8/14 at 8:28am
post #36 of 37
If the warnings are all you want to get rid of, I did read somewhere, explaining how to disable the low memory warnings. It was answers.microsoft.com

Computer Configuration
> Administrative Templates
> System
> Troubleshooting and Diagnostics
> Windows Resource Exhaustion Detection and Resolution
> Configure Scenario Execution Level
>>>>> Disable

But then it will be essentially like ignoring the warnings like what I originally posted saying what I do and eventually your offending application will crash and/or close without warning.

Edit: I did notice that MS seams to see the need to play babysitter more and more with the new OS's. Windows 7 is worse and I hear Widows 8 is even worse than that. Probably because 80% of the computing public are Dead Head Zombies or Mindless Robots and they think they need to protect them from themselves. I think they should just put a 'Babysitter' config setting in the OS that the idiots can turn on when they need it. Or call it Zombie/Robot setting biggrin.gif
Edited by Richman - 3/8/14 at 5:01pm
post #37 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richman View Post

If the warnings are all you want to get rid of, I did read somewhere, explaining how to disable the low memory warnings. It was answers.microsoft.com

Computer Configuration
> Administrative Templates
> System
> Troubleshooting and Diagnostics
> Windows Resource Exhaustion Detection and Resolution
> Configure Scenario Execution Level
>>>>> Disable

But then it will be essentially like ignoring the warnings like what I originally posted saying what I do and eventually your offending application will crash and/or close without warning.

Edit: I did notice that MS seams to see the need to play babysitter more and more with the new OS's. Windows 7 is worse and I hear Widows 8 is even worse than that. Probably because 80% of the computing public are Dead Head Zombies or Mindless Robots and they think they need to protect them from themselves. I think they should just put a 'Babysitter' config setting in the OS that the idiots can turn on when they need it. Or call it Zombie/Robot setting biggrin.gif

Thanks again man. I'm still varying my testing with different pagefile sizes now and trying to figure out the best route to go down here. Most programs are no problem. But something about bf4, it just needs the pagefile regardless of ram. It's an issue a lot of people have noticed actually. Loads who have been running pagefile disabled for a long time have had to start using it again because of this game.

I would love to have a babysitter config as well haha!! I think the windows crowd is generally way less knowledgeable than say, the linux crowd. So I can see why ms runs things this way. But they really should have that babysitter config lol...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Windows
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Windows › Is it possible to adjust Windows 7 low memory warning levels?