Overclock.net banner

6 GB RAM - Win XP 32 bit - Paging file on RAM DISK

35K views 43 replies 27 participants last post by  Blameless 
#1 ·
Hi, everyone!

I have Vista 64 bit and XP Pro 32 bit in a dual boot set up, I also have 6 GB RAM.
At the moment I am using mostly XP and therefore only utilizing 3,25 GB RAM.
To utilize all of the physical memory, I put 2,6 GB Page file on the RAM disk.
Is this going to help my performance in XP?
 
#2 ·
No, page file is off of the hard drive not the ram. Page file is just an allocated space on your hard drive that acts as ram. So your not utilizing the rest of your ram by doing that. its to separate entities.
 
#3 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardd View Post
Hi, everyone!

I have Vista 64 bit and XP Pro 32 bit in a dual boot set up, I also have 6 GB RAM.
At the moment I am using mostly XP and therefore only utilizing 3,25 GB RAM.
To utilize all of the physical memory, I put 2,6 GB Page file on the RAM disk.
Is this going to help my performance in XP?
Not really.
 
#5 ·
hmm why two threads? and,
are you sure the 2.6Gb you assigned to RAM disk comes from the unutilised RAM?i created a ram disk but it took away from the 3.25GB recognised ram and not the left over.
 
#7 ·
I don't understand how you can create a ramdisk out of the unaddressable portion of memory. I would think if you created a 2.5gb ramdisk while inside WinXP, then that 2.5gb would come from the 3.25gb of addressable ram. That would limit WinXP to using only like 768mb of ram for programs. I am sure it would work and any use of the page file would be extremely fast, since the page file should only be heavily utilized when you are running out of memory, its sorta defeating the purpose.

If you have some unique way of creating a ramdisk before windows loads, please share.
 
#10 ·
Wow, nice find. I never would have believed it.

Quote:
RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB.
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

If that is true, then yes. It would result in a nice speed boost.
 
#11 ·
Also from the RamDisk homepage:

"RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB."
 
#14 ·
I would definately try what you proposed in the initial post. Granted with 3.25gb in XP you probably arent using the paging file a whole lot unless you are heavily multitasking, but you should definately see a small boost.
 
#15 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by stanrc View Post
Hmm.. it says it has a detailed explanation in the help file, can you post that up. I'm curious how they do this.
I am wondering too. Maybe it loads before the OS, like a specialized linux distro or a modern-ized DOS TSR utility.
 
#16 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post
I am wondering too. Maybe it loads before the OS, like a specialized linux distro or a modern-ized DOS TSR utility.
it is said to use PAE with two different methods of allocating unmanaged memory.

1)

Quote:
Dynamic allocation allows Unmanaged Memory (UM) to be allocated in a fashion similar to how Windows allocates physical memory pages. When a RAM disk is created, memory is first allocated from any unallocated UM, and then from unallocated Windows-managed memory. When a RAM disk is removed, the physical memory allocated to it is returned -- either to the pool of physical pages that Windows manages, or to the UM pool that RamDisk Plus 9.0 manages.
2)

Quote:
Direct address allows Unmanaged Memory (UM) to be allocated as a single block of contiguous physical memory pages. A base or starting physical address must be specified in the form of a Page Frame Number (PFN). The number of physical memory pages used for the RAM disk is determined by the RAM disk's size.
 
#17 ·
I really hope this is a legitimate solution. I don't want to leave 32-bit just yet, because I'm not done with my 16-bit games, and I don't want to dual-boot.
 
#18 ·
Interesting..... can you post benchmarks decompressing large .RAR files? I believe that task is memory intensive.
 
#19 ·
I agree, this is very interesting. I have a laptop that can only see 2.8GB of RAM even though I have 4 because of the limits of 32 bit (has dual 512MB vid cards). If this works it would help me a whole lot.
 
#20 ·
Er.. XP has been able to use over 4GB since SP2 iirc, but programs need to be written in such a way to check for the extra memory, as your typical VirtualAllocEx calls will fail for anything over 4gb. It's nothing new, and most Microsoft programs/server apps will use over 4gb. XP is a 32-bit flat memory model OS, that simply means all ring 3 processes can only see 4gb of memory total, and the lower 2gb is always for the process, and the upper 2gb is always for the OS, unless you supply the /3gb switch at boot. However, ring 0 processes will be able to access all your memory (device drivers, kernel, ect).
 
#22 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by BinaryDemon View Post
I would definately try what you proposed in the initial post. Granted with 3.25gb in XP you probably arent using the paging file a whole lot unless you are heavily multitasking, but you should definately see a small boost.
hmm, Firefox open with 50-60 tabs takes about 900 MB...

then, if I run Age of Conan, that can actually go over 2GB, which is why I have to boot windows with the /3GB switch

Then there's teamspeak, Fraps, Pidgin, Comodo which are always running... so I do end up using the swapfile without all that much multitasking.

when I really start multitasking with Sun's VirtualBox, it gets really interesting ;-)

Another weird thing about windows seems to be, that it will use the swapfile even if its not out of physical memory...

So I think Ramdisk is massively useful.
 
#23 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardd View Post
Also from the RamDisk homepage:

"RamDisk Plus 9 has a most unique feature. Our patent pending technology can access memory beyond the limitation imposed by a Windows 32-bit operating system! In other words, RamDisk Plus 9 can use "unmanaged" Windows' memory e.g. above 4GB. It can also use the stubbornly inaccessable memory between 3.2GB and 4GB."
Just downloaded the RamDisk Plus 10 trial version, it has the same claim. My system only sees 3GB of ram (I have 4GB physically), however, when I created a 1GB Ramdisk, the ram usage shown in the Task Manager jumped from 1GB to 2GB (while the Total Physical Memory remained at 3GB). So does that mean it just used 1GB of my addressed ram? How do I make it use my un-addressed ram as it claimed to be able to do? Thanks.
 
#24 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by edwardd View Post
Hi, everyone!

I have Vista 64 bit and XP Pro 32 bit in a dual boot set up, I also have 6 GB RAM.
At the moment I am using mostly XP and therefore only utilizing 3,25 GB RAM.
To utilize all of the physical memory, I put 2,6 GB Page file on the RAM disk.
Is this going to help my performance in XP?
32-bit can't use over 4GB of ram.

Also you would need to boot a ramdisk before booting windows so the virtual Ramdisk will be there when windows boots up. However with that amount of ram it's better to apply very little Page file and let the rest use the ram
 
#25 ·
I see an initial post that states that a certain piece of software can use unallocated software in win32 followed by a bunch of people who state that it's impossible.

1. With experience, can anyone state that this is possible? I don't care to hear about people's opinion whether it's technically unsound or not - very few people, if any, actually know all of a particular spec. There may be things that many of you do not know. Tell me it's not possible given a certain scenario after you have tried it - keep your mind open because, again, nobody knows everything.

2. I know 64 bit is next gen, however it seems to be not as solid as 32. Bear in mind, 32 dev has been underway for around the past 20 years, 64 bit is still a baby in a world that REQUIRES stability. If this solution works to map past 4GB in 32 bit world, then ultimately there is very little point to use 64 bit unless something is developed solidly as 64 bit (I know, from experience, that native 64bit is very fast - especially with video encoding and stream construction -- very few applications utilize this, and if they do, then they require very specific hardware.)

 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top