| reply to PingPong
Re: If you go beyond 128 Mbs RAM, do this! Ping-Pong:
As usual, a fine, informative analysis about a MS problem that you've offered us. Many thanks. Note that the first link in my initial post briefly, concisely, explains the problem you've set out in your own crisp effective manner.
To save time for those looking at the thread this far, I'll reproduce the relevant paragraphs dealing from the link with this: (Note that the relevant paragraph that refers VFAT etc in your memo is set off by .....)
" . . . Based on benchmark testing by MS-MVPs Mike Burgess, Alex Nichol, and other MS-MVP colleagues, I have concluded that this tweak [ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 in the system.ini] can be of real value in many Win98/ME systems with 128 MB of RAM or more (and on some 64 MB systems). If your machine has sufficient RAM that, for your particular use of your computer, there is relatively little swap file usage, then this tweak will probably improve system performance by reducing the overhead in swap file maintenance activities that you do not really need. [NOTE: In contrast to behavior in Win98, testing of this by Mike Burgess in Windows Millennium Edition showed no significant performance difference with or without it. However, because it does affect swap file run-away growth on some computers -- such as mine! -- I am presently recommending this on Windows ME.]
"The default value of ConservativeSwapfileUsage was 1 in Win95, and 0 in Win98 and WinME. Therefore, this recommended tweak reverts a portion of the Win98/ME improved memory management system back to the way Win95 did things. (That's what sounded like such a bad idea at first, because Win98 or ME is generally far superior to Win95 with regard to memory management.) A valid question, though, is whether it is a good (that is, useful) idea for systems that have grown past the RAM size originally contemplated as typical when Win98 was created. For many computers, the answer seems to be: Yes, it is.
"According to MS Knowledge Base article Q223294,
"'..........Windows 98 added a new feature, PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file (swap file) buffers during periods of time when VFAT file system activity is not busy. This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs [virtual drivers] that monitor and/or otherwise intercept PageFile VxD functions............'
"(See the article itself for more technical background on the rather clever way this function operates.)
"This feature is part of improvements made initially in Windows 98 that lend the appearance of faster performance to a Win98/ME computer because many of the small time-consuming activities are deferred to moments when you are not actually asking the computer to do anything. The tweak described above disables this feature. As MS-MVP Jeff Richards summarized it, "It's more conservative in scheduling non-critical swap-file activity."
"Microsoft advises that this change may be "at some cost in overall system performance." Furthermore, in theory it would seem that this would make the computer seem slower. But only experimentation on a given system (and by a particular user on that system) can determine what the subjective performance difference (pro or con) would be. Based on experience to date, I would say it is probable that this tweak will have a positive effect on systems with an unusually large amount of RAM, and very little swap file activity. It is unlikely that it would have a positive effect on other systems, and might have a negative impact on their performance.
"Since the tweak is so easy to undo -- just remove, or comment out the line added to SYSTEM.INI -- "power users" will likely want to experiment with this and give more feedback to the general community."
So Ping Pong: quite possibly your tweaks deal with the problems that might crop up on some systems. Later today, then---when I get some more time (back to my work now)---I'll try myself to experiment with your added tweaks.
You get my vote for sure anyway.
Michael
[text was edited by author 2001-04-20 15:57:41]
[text was edited by author 2001-04-20 15:59:37] |
