windows 2003 SP1 showing incorrect system cache
This is a discussion about windows 2003 SP1 showing incorrect system cache in the Everything New Technology category; Hi, If you look at this image ( ) , you'll notice something strange. At least, I think it's strange. What I see is 4 GB of physical RAM, 2. 8 GB of free RAM and 2. 9 GB of this physical is in a system cache.
Hi,
If you look at this image ( taskmanager ) , you'll notice something strange.
At least, I think it's strange.
What I see is 4 GB of physical RAM, 2.8 GB of free RAM and 2.9 GB of this physical is in a system cache.
Then there is 1.8 GB of committed memory.
This does not add up correctly. 2.8+2.9 is already 5.7 GB, way over the 4 GB of memory in the machine. And that's without incorporating extra memory of the committed memory in the processes.
When I run the performance monitor, I see about 130 MB in Memory/Cache bytes.
Can anybody tell me what's wrong?
Maybe a bug (searched for it in the knowledge base of µSoft though)?
Thanks,
Roger
If you look at this image ( taskmanager ) , you'll notice something strange.
At least, I think it's strange.
What I see is 4 GB of physical RAM, 2.8 GB of free RAM and 2.9 GB of this physical is in a system cache.
Then there is 1.8 GB of committed memory.
This does not add up correctly. 2.8+2.9 is already 5.7 GB, way over the 4 GB of memory in the machine. And that's without incorporating extra memory of the committed memory in the processes.
When I run the performance monitor, I see about 130 MB in Memory/Cache bytes.
Can anybody tell me what's wrong?
Maybe a bug (searched for it in the knowledge base of µSoft though)?
Thanks,
Roger
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Apr 3
Apr 9
0
3 minutes
Responses to this topic
How big is your pagefile?
OP
Originally Posted By: DosFreakHow big is your pagefile?
About 6 GB.
Roger
About 6 GB.
Roger
OP
Originally Posted By: MinifigOriginally Posted By: DosFreakHow big is your pagefile?
About 6 GB.
But I don't see how this can be relevant as free memory and system cache are ONLY in physical memory.
Roger
About 6 GB.
But I don't see how this can be relevant as free memory and system cache are ONLY in physical memory.
Roger
2.8(Available)+2.9(System Cache)=5.7-1.7(pagefile)=4gb (Total Physical Memory)
OP
Originally Posted By: DosFreak2.8(Available)+2.9(System Cache)=5.7-1.7(pagefile)=4gb (Total Physical Memory)
Can you tell me why Windows would put 1.7 GB in a pagefile when there is still 2.8 GB available?
This means that System Cache also ends up in a paging file?
This is even stranger when you consider the fact that there is only 1.8 GB of committed memory.
Roger
Can you tell me why Windows would put 1.7 GB in a pagefile when there is still 2.8 GB available?
This means that System Cache also ends up in a paging file?
This is even stranger when you consider the fact that there is only 1.8 GB of committed memory.
Roger
PF Usage and Commit Charge Total are the same thing and the value reported doesn't mean that's how much is being used.
Below site is a good site to have in your RSS:
http://blogs.technet.com/perfguru/archiv...sk-manager.aspx
Quote:PF Usage as reported in task manager in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 is actually the system commit total. This number represents potential page file usage, not actual page file usage. It is how much page file space would be used if all the private committed virtual memory in the system had to be paged out all at once.
You'll have to use perfmon to see exactly how much:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654
Frankly I've never cared enough to bother. HD space is so cheap I just set pagefile to recommended values on desktops and servers. Wasting time determining "optimal" pagefile size is just that.
But if you think you have a memory leak then perfmon and/or the Reliability and Perfmance monitor in Vista/2008 are handy.
Below site is a good site to have in your RSS:
http://blogs.technet.com/perfguru/archiv...sk-manager.aspx
Quote:PF Usage as reported in task manager in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 is actually the system commit total. This number represents potential page file usage, not actual page file usage. It is how much page file space would be used if all the private committed virtual memory in the system had to be paged out all at once.
You'll have to use perfmon to see exactly how much:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654
Frankly I've never cared enough to bother. HD space is so cheap I just set pagefile to recommended values on desktops and servers. Wasting time determining "optimal" pagefile size is just that.
But if you think you have a memory leak then perfmon and/or the Reliability and Perfmance monitor in Vista/2008 are handy.
OP
The information in the link from technet you send, is something I already know. I am going to look around there some more as it's about performance in general.
The problem I have is not usage of a paging file though.
My problem is that it seems that a part of the System Cache can also be put in a paging file.
If there is 2.8 GB of RAM free and 2.9 GB is in System Cache, then there has to be some of this cache in the paging file which is strange because for system cache to work efficiently, it has to be in real memory. There is no advantage putting caches on disk.
The real question is: Are the 3 numbers in the Physical memory tab (Total, Available and System Cache) really in physical memory?
Roger
It stores it in the pagefile to reduce the amount of physical memory used. If you want to store more in memory instead of the pagefile then upgrade to Vista/2008.
OP
Putting caches on disc seems really strange from design point of view afaic.
But then again, I don't work at µsoft.
Thanks
But then again, I don't work at µsoft.
Thanks
