Printable View
I have a customers machine that I am trying to fix and it keeps coming up with a Low virtual memory error.
I have recreated the paging file and have set the minimum to 1.5 times the physical RAM (in this case this is 122mb). Maximum a little higher.
She only has one partition.
Any ideas ?
Mmmm ... the 1.5 times 'rule of thumb' is ok as long as you aren't running out of physical memory ... here you are ! Suggest you let windows manage the swap file OR set it bigger !
Generally I only create a fixed swap file where I'm certainthat the peak memory requirements of any given system won't exceed my allocated physical memory & swap file ! This isn't because of memory management concerns, but the fact that a fixed swap file, is faster as it isn't constantly resizing, it has to though be 'big enough' to contain all your likely operations, whatever size you 'set' it at...
Thanks for your reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
As the machine is obviously struggling, for me to set the swap file to be managed by windows may slow it down even more though right ?
Very probably ... resizing constantly is what 'munches' those cpu cycles .. but if you have enough hard drive space just set it bigger, its the only way out without 'better' kit ...Quote:
Originally Posted by smevans
If you ask me 122 meg (how the hell do we get that as installed memory?) is no where big enough for a w2k install (despite what Billy Boy might think is ok ;)), you want 98se on that beast ! :devil:
Its a customers machine so all I can do is advise on extra RAM - to be honest though a new machine would be best..!Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
I am gonna set it to a minimum of 600mb - max 1gb - shes has plenty of hard disk space left and see how she gets on.
Thanks again.
Most welcome :) ..over 512meg is what I want for physical memory &/or swap in any xp or w2k install so with 600meg to 1gig you ought to be home & dry 'memory error' wise .. how it does performance wise, as you've noted, is another story :)
Oooo ! Bloomin edit ...! :rolleyes:
Errr set the swap file as some value between those ranges say 750mb (which experience tells me is 'always' enough) ...otherwise its still gonna resize between your ranges ! & be munching those cycles whilst resizing :eek2:
Is there a more simple solution here? Is there an app running that's sucking up the memory bit by bit until you get your errors?
Norton's a good one to start with, (if loaded), does task manager give any clues?
What are you getting at Gary ... memory leaks ? read back ;) ... here he only has 122mb of memeory (I still don't know how the hell he gets that, maybe shared video ?) & he physically over-rode the 'usual' virtual memory settings to a max of 1.5 times that so 193 ... which isn't anywhere near enough ...Quote:
Originally Posted by gazzak
Yes, 128Mb minus shared video memory maybe, but 6Mb would be an odd figure. It reads to me as if he was meaning 122Mb was his minimum swapfile size, 1.5 times the physical ram? That would be even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
Out of curiosity, do you have MS word installed on this machine? If so try deleting all normal.dots and see waht happens. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by smevans
I gotta ask ... what the hell has word got to do with swap files ? :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonie
Or was it a post beer thought ? :eek2:
I am going on the premise of low virtual memory and in some cases, I have seen a corrupted normal.dot cause this to pop up quite often. Just something to check since I assumed it was running correctly before and this just started.Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
Okay ... but he means all the time ... not just inside word ;) (I know corrupt normal.dot can do that) but he never mentions any application, he means whatever he's doing he gets these errors.
Office has a start up, and often word is used for email editing, ergo word is loaded at startup. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
I just get the impression from the first post that this is a recent thing, otherwise he would probably have said this has happened from the beginning. I always try to read between the lines because sometimes the biggest clues are from what's not said ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by confus-ed
That normal.dot thing rings bells too, must go look it up. Oh well, there goes another mornings work!!
Ok....I read this thread yesterday and i reread quickly today. I don't see a reference to an Operating System at all. Which one is it?
I had a couple of machines in our office that would throw up the "low on virtual memory" message. Ran Ad-Aware and cleaned up all browser hijackers, spyware, and other useless junk (temp files, etc...) and those machines run like new again. No more virtual memory errors.
I'd try cleaning up the system first rather than mess with virtual memory settings, you may just have some junk floating around leaking memory.
I would have to guess win2k. cause thats what forum its in.Quote:
Originally Posted by shanff
i think the real question here is: why would anyone attempt to run windows 2000 on a machine with only 128mb of ram?
Would you mind putting that question to the sys admin at our college?Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer_1
:devil: Oh ya, thats including 8 mb shared vid memory and systray full of mcafee, network control, printcredit read out, and some crapy printscreen proggie.... :rolleyes:
We both know that's not always applicable on all forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Damned Angel
Anyway, I still have many machines in our office running Windows 2000 on 128 MB of ram. Granted they're at the lower end of our office's life cycle, they're still running fine. Have Office XP, Norton Corp client, Loan processing software running side by side by side full time with no problems. Only time we have problems with virtual memory errors is when there is some junk software installed such as those easily removed with Adaware. Weatherbug, webshots, any IE addon other than say, the Google bar.
Windows 2000 and 128 MB of ram work pretty decently together unless you're trying to run the latest games, CAD or video editing.
Let's everyone remember before i get flamed for saying windows 2000 + 128 MB ram = decent. Said machines are office machines, not my personal machine.