Low virtual Memory

[smevans]

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 ?

[confus-ed]

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...

[smevans]

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.

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 ?

[confus-ed]

Thanks for your reply.

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 ...

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 !

[smevans]

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 ...

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 !

Its a customers machine so all I can do is advise on extra RAM - to be honest though a new machine would be best..!

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.

[confus-ed]

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 ...!

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

[gazzak]

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?

[confus-ed]

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 ...

[Platypus]

122mb of memeory (I still don't know how the hell he gets that

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.

[Zonie]

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 ?

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.

[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.

I gotta ask ... what the hell has word got to do with swap files ?

Or was it a post beer thought ?

[Zonie]

I gotta ask ... what the hell has word got to do with swap files ?

Or was it a post beer thought ?

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.

[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.

[NooNoo]

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.

[gazzak]

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 ...

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

That normal.dot thing rings bells too, must go look it up. Oh well, there goes another mornings work!!