Customize system to use less memory

Hi!
I'm a bit disapointed with my macmini. It has been really a hard job work with professional applications such Flash, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, etc. Course that an iMac should be more appropriated, but sometimes you get what you can. I want to work with MacOS X plataform even if I got to see some "slow-motion", and a multicolor ball, rounding and rounding.
What I do not expect to see is an unstable system with 99% of phisical memory full, most part of the time. Flash closes many times of the day, and I cannot blame it! I also got an iMac 333 with 384Mb of RAM running Panther and it runs all this software, even better (not considering speed, just stability).
What Leopard is doing with memory??? Is there a way to reduce memory usage, dedicating more to applications?

Nerowolfe. Well, this is a discussion place - so let's do it!
I agree with you in some points: today I have an old car and I buy it becouse I think ar conditioning is already a basic item, also a security system in Brazil today! Ok, we are not talking about some brand new SUV, but even a small indian car that came with ar is expected to works even with ar turned on.
Let's go back to MacMini. Apple sell it with 1GB. Ok, let's forget Flash, Dreamweaver and Photoshop. Let's call iTunes, iMovie, Safari, Mail and some others small ones. Let's work for 4 - 6 hours. Hummm. At the very end of RAM, the chance of a crash is very high. This is a point.
Another point is that an upgrade from 1 to 4 is brutal force (and expansive). Like a kompressor in an old engine. Something is wrong, but quadruplicating memory it will seams ok. I'd use to do it with PC with Windows. The system may go slow, but may not go down. My iMac 333 with 384MB runs Panther and when I try to open several apps toghether, it becomes VERY slow, but take more time before crashes. I credit that to it's HD, a 7200rpm Barracuda.
I was thinking about a downgrade to Tiger, or put more 1GB and a faster HD. What you think about?
Last (but not list) point: I think operational systems should be customizables to work in old machines in order to generate no more digital garbage - it is also an environmental problem. The ZX and iMac 333 may go to garbage, but any 1GB G4, G5 and even Intel macs may not - there is no space for it anymore!

Similar Messages

What can I tune to make the database use less memory in a 1GB ram notebook?

Hi,
Our notebook has 1GB ram only, running Windows XP Pro, Oracle10g Database, Oracle9i Application Server. It consumes about 1.4 - 1.5GB ram where it's already start using the virtual memory, therefore have some performance issue with it especially when try to startup the services.
I'm not a DBA but I would like to get some advice on what and how can I tune the database to use less memory since the notebook is used for demo application only, so we save memory resource and make the notebook runs faster.
Please advise.
Thank you.

Application Server 10gR1, 10gR2 is certified against WinXP:
XP      10g (9.0.4.0.1)      N/A      Desupported       None       Yes      N/A
XP      10g (9.0.4)      N/A      Desupported      None      Yes      N/A
XP      10g (10.1.3.1.0)      N/A      Certified      Yes      None      None
XP SP2+      10g (10.1.3.0.0)      N/A      Certified      None      Yes      Yes
XP SP2      10g (10.1.2.0.2)      N/A      Certified      None      Yes      Yes
XP SP2      10g (10.1.2.0.1)      N/A      Certified      None      Yes      Yes
XP Xeon      10g (10.1.2.0.0)      N/A      Certified      None      Yes      Yes
XP      10g (10.1.2.0.0)      N/A      Certified      None      Yes      Yes
XP      9.0.3      N/A      Desupported      None      Yes      N/A
XP      9.0.2.0.1      N/A      Desupported      None      None      N/ADessupported means Oracle will no longer produce patches or provide maintenance for the version, so in case you hit some new bug the only alternative will be to work with a higher version.
In your case you could use 10g on XP. The only XP not supported is Home Edition.
Coming back to the issue, since 9iR2 Oracle recommendation is to provide 1G for each AS node (infrastructure and middle tier). If you have this on the same box, by itself on the Enterprise install will consume more than 1G.
Tuning 10g database won't make much difference. If you install AS 10gR2 it includes a 10gR1 Database as infrastructure database you could use for demo purposes.
~ Madrid.

SQL server 2012 Ent using less memory than the allocated amount after enabling -T834

I am facing the situation mentioned here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/psssql/archive/2009/06/05/sql-server-and-large-pages-explained.aspx
My SQL Server 2012 is not able to use all the 112 GB RAM that was allocated to it after enabling -T834.
This was not the case earlier. Now I see the Total server memory and target server memory counters are just 27 GB constantly. I found the below error while starting SQL after enabling -T834. I restarted services again and this time it started fine. But I
didnt bother about the error untill users complained slowness and SQL memory usage was found to be low.
Detected 131068 MB of RAM. This is an informational message; no user action is required.
Using large pages in the memory manager.
Large Page Allocated: 32MB
Large page allocation failed during memory manager initialization
Failed to initialize the memory manager
Failed allocate pages: FAIL_PAGE_ALLOCATION 2
Error: 17138, Severity: 16, State: 1.
Unable to allocate enough memory to start 'SQL OS Boot'. Reduce non-essential memory load or increase system memory.
Now, SQL is started by its Total server memory is only 27 GB. How can I make SQL server use all the allocated max server memory with -T834 still on ?
Bharath Kumar ------------- Please mark solved if I've answered your question, vote for it as helpful to help other user's find a solution quicker

Hi Bharath ,
in the below post the scenario is mentioned clearly
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/psssql/archive/2009/06/05/sql-server-and-large-pages-explained.aspx
Unable to allocate enough memory to start 'SQL OS Boot'. Reduce non-essential memory load or increase system memory.
This shows one of the problems with large pages: the memory size requested must be contiguous. This is called out very nicely at the MSDN
article on Large Pages
These memory regions may be difficult to obtain after the system has been running for a long time because the space for each large page must be contiguous, but the memory may have become fragmented. This is an expensive operation;
therefore, applications should avoid making repeated large page allocations and allocate them all one time at startup instead.
In this case above, even if ‘max server memory’ was set to say 8Gb, the server could only allocate 2Gb and that now becomes a maximum allocation for the buffer pool. Remember we don’t grow the buffer pool when using large pages so whatever memory we allocate
at startup is the max you get.
The other interesting thing you will find out with large pages is a possible slowdown in server startup time. Notice in the ERRORLOG entry above the gap of 7 minutes between the server discovering trace flag 834 was on (the "Using large pages..” message)
and the message about how much large memory was allocated for the buffer pool. Not only does it take a long time to call VirtualAlloc() but in the case where we cannot allocate total physical memory or ‘max server memory” we attempt to allocate lower values
several times before either finding one that works or failing to start. We have had some customers report the time to start the server when using trace flag 834 was over 30 minutes.
regards,
Ram
ramakrishna

64-bit Mac app, would use less memory

Spotify is the last 32-bit app on my Mac.
That means when it's launched (which is all the time), OS X has to load all the system frameworks into memory a second time, but now the 32-bit versions of them, next to the 64-bit versions already there. Just to accommodate Spotify. (source: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/64bitPorting/indications/indications.html)
As such, Spotify invisibly takes up way more memory than what it actually needs to run.
I can understand the need for Spotify to be backwards compatible with 5+ years old Mac hardware in use as media players and such, but that can be accommodated with a fat binary, including both 32-bit and 64-bit code.
In 2013, it is a bit strange that lots of Mac users of Spotify have to pay this memory burden of the past, while where is an elegant solution available in the form of fat binaries.
Another thread about this subject:
http://community.spotify.com/t5/Help-Desktop-Linux-Mac-and/No-64-bit-Mac-version/m-p/85001

Hi, OP here.
Focusing on the quality of the desktop app after improving the looks is a good idea, but it is a very strange argument for marking this idea as "Not Right Now", because this idea is all about the fundamental quality of the Mac desktop app.
I guess the staff monitoring here aren't really the technical folks responsible for these decisions, or they are more knowledgeable about the Windows or Linux platforms as opposed to OS X, but let me point out the relevant bits from the documentation I linked to earlier:
Similarly, in v10.6 and later, the first non-64-bit-capable application pays a performance and memory footprint penalty because OS X must bring in the entire 32-bit framework stack. Thus, if you are primarily targeting OS X v10.6 and later, you should be 64-bit if at all possible.
A 64-bit app can consume significantly more memory than a 32-bit app. For this reason, it is tempting to continue to ship 32-bit apps. However, this is usually not the right thing to do.
In OS X v10.6 and later, most built-in apps are 64-bit. The first time you run a 32-bit application, all of the 32-bit framework slices must be loaded into memory. This means that loading older, 32-bit-only applications causes significant memory pressure, particularly on computers with limited RAM. This often outweighs the additional memory impact caused by larger data structures.
This has been the case since 10.6 was released well over 5 years ago.
Now, the probable reason Spotify has been delaying this is their use of the Chromium Embedded Framework, which has been 32-bit only for a long time. In August 2013 however they introduced 64-bit builds for Windows and Mac OS X with version 3.1547.1412.
So it seems there shouldn't be any bariers anymore for Spotify to release a 64-bit capable update for the Mac client. Please do so!
Google says this about the benefits of using 64-bits Chromium, which would also apply to Spotify:
64-bit Chrome has become faster as a result of having access to a superior instruction set, more registers, and a more efficient function calling convention. Improved opportunities for ASLR enhance this version’s security. Another major benefit of this change comes from the fact that most programs on a modern Mac are already 64-bit apps. In cases where Chrome was the last remaining 32-bit app, there were launch-time and memory-footprint penalties as 32-bit copies of all of the system libraries needed to be loaded to support Chrome. Now that Chrome’s a 64-bit app too, we expect you’ll find that it launches more quickly and that overall system memory use decreases.
Now, for everyones enjoyment and inspiration, a pretty picture of a rather large cat:

How do I get Firefox to use less memory? None of the answers I've found online work. I'm ready to go back to IE!

I like to keep several tabs open while I'm working. I have friends who do this with no noticeable effect on their computer speed. My Task Manager consistently shows a huge amount of memory being used by firefox, increasing as I keep my browser open. Closing tabs doesn't help, and I've tried about a dozen "fixes" that I've found online. Thanks for your help.

See these:
http://malwaretips.com/blogs/remove-istart123-virus/
http://www.pcthreat.com/parasitebyid-45021en.html

How to make GUI application run fast and use less memory?

Hi, there,
My GUI application have:
Menu, toolbar, filechooser, JTable, and log panel.(There is not much file io operation)
When I run it in my machine, it is so slow, and if I run several times, close it after each run, it will run out of my memory. I am using PII266MMX, 256RAM. (When I run another software, such as flashfxp, GUI of which is more complicated than mine, however it is far faster than mine, but I don't think it is written in JAVA), Is JAVA's GUI desktop application not fast?
Regardless hardware factors, what should I pay attention to writing an efficient GUI application?
Can anybody give some advice?
Thanks a lot, thanks .....

Thank you, Denis.
I can run several times of this applicaiton in another machine: PIII866, 256M RAM (windows 2000). I didn't encounter the memory problem, I can open serveral windows of it with that machine.
Why I met this problem in this old machine, I alway get memory not enough problem.(this old machine comes with Win98). Both of machines have same memory(256M).
Could you please give me some hint?
Thanks,
Sitai

Making 10.3.9 use less memory?

Hello - I have 10.3.9 running on a 933 MHz ibook with 640 MB Ram...is there anyway of disabling certain extensions or other functionality that would make the computer a little less sluggish? I realize that the best thing to do would be to add a 1 gig Ram chip but I would rather not spend the cash right now.
Thanks - Ryan

If you have programs that you don't use, delete those as well.
For example: Garageband, iDVD, any games that came with OS X.
To see what's on your hard drive and how much space is being taken up you can use the program WhatSize. Also, the program MonoLingual will remove any extra languages you have on your computer.
Both programs can be found at http://www.versiontracker.com
~iBook G4 1.07GHz (Kaiya), with extra 256MB RAM (Mac OS X 10.3.9)~ LaCie 160GB external hard drive~ ~3G 15GB iPod (Nakai)~ ~GiveStarsto users who earn them.~

Create thumbnail using excessive memory

I have the following code to read an image (in a file) and create a thumbnail image, writing it to a file:
BufferedImage originalBufferedImage = ImageIO.read(new File(imagePathAndFileName));
int originalWidth = originalBufferedImage.getWidth();
int originalHeight = originalBufferedImage.getHeight();
double scale = 0;
if (((double)75 / originalWidth) <
((double)75 / originalHeight)) {
scale = (double)75 / originalWidth;
} else {
scale = (double)75 / originalHeight;
int width = (int)(originalWidth * scale);
int height = (int)(originalHeight * scale);
BufferedImage newBufferedImage = new BufferedImage(width, height, originalBufferedImage.getType());
Graphics2D graphics2D = newBufferedImage.createGraphics();
Canvas dummyObserver = new Canvas();
Image scaledImage = originalBufferedImage.getScaledInstance(width, height, Image.SCALE_SMOOTH);
graphics2D.drawImage(scaledImage, 0, 0, dummyObserver);
javax.imageio.ImageIO.write(newBufferedImage, fileType, new File(thumbnailPathAndFileName));
With a 1.9 Megabyte image, the call to ImageIO.read() tries to allocate 15 Megabytes of memory, as seen from the log (obtained in WebSphere 5.1 by setting an ALLOCATION_THRESHOLD limit):
Allocation request for 15085072 bytes
at java.awt.image.DataBufferByte.<init>(DataBufferByte.java:87)
at java.awt.image.ComponentSampleModel.createDataBuffer(ComponentSampleModel.java:430)
at java.awt.image.Raster.createWritableRaster(Raster.java:965)
at javax.imageio.ImageTypeSpecifier.createBufferedImage(ImageTypeSpecifier.java:1146)
at javax.imageio.ImageReader.getDestination(ImageReader.java:2868)
at com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg.JPEGImageReader.readInternal(JPEGImageReader.java:914)
at com.sun.imageio.plugins.jpeg.JPEGImageReader.read(JPEGImageReader.java:886)
at javax.imageio.ImageIO.read(ImageIO.java:1413)
at javax.imageio.ImageIO.read(ImageIO.java:1299)
Why does it use 15M to read in an image of 1.9M ? Is there a more efficient way to create thumbnail images?

A 15M image correponds to a 5M-pixel RGB 24-bit image. "ImageIO.read" decodes your 1.9M compressed jpeg (beeing roughly a 5Mpixel image, right?) file to a buffered image of some in-memory RGB 24bit format making it consuming 15M. You can get away with using less memory if you can find some ImageIO plugin returning a BufferedImage of type TYPE_CUSTOM with a compressed in-memory representation of the loaded image.
Regards,
Arvid

Customize System properties via GPO

Hi Everybody!!
I need to customize System Properties using a GPO. I mean apart from the system properties information y need to add company information as telephone number, web site, etc.
The Operative System of the computer client is Windows 7.
It will be very helpful if someone give me some tips or references for starting.
Thanks in advance.
AG

follow these steps:
1. Type regedit in RUN dialog box or Start Menu searchbox and press Enter. It'll open Registry Editor, now go to:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion
Under this key, look for a key OEMInformation. If it doesn't exist, create it.
2. Now select OEMInformation key and in right-side pane, create following
String values and set their values as shown below:
Logo - path_of_OEMlogo.bmp_file
Manufacturer - Any_desired_name
Model - Any_desired_name
SupportHours - Any_desired_time_amount_like_24x7
SupportPhone - Any_desired_phone_number
SupportURL - Any_desired_URL
NOTE: OEMlogo.bmp file should be 96x96 in size and can be placed at any location
GPO
Use Group policy to create the Reg Key and aslo distribute the files to all PC local Drive

How can I tweak firefox to use less of RAM?100MB+ is too much for my system.thanks

Ok,
I have latest updated version of firefox.
I have hp510 laptop with 1 GB of RAM.
My problem is that firefox is really good but uses too much of RAM(100 MB or more) while in usage.
How can I tweak firefox to use less RAM, as my system gets hammered.
Thank you.
Danny

thanks.
I opened my extensions, and all are disabled, except ADBLOCK.
I usually clean my history on weekly basis, sometimes even on daily basis.
When I use firefox, most of the time ther is no other application in use by me (I don't encounter all those back apps for the system).
Most of the time, I have only 2 windows open , very rare there more.
The issue is that even at starting of firefox session I can see in task manager there is minimum 95 MB or charge, without any work done by me.
I usually have charge about 370-390 MB of RAM, but when I open Firefox it gets me up to 500 or more.

POA Agent Uses Uses all memory in system then is killed.

System OES2 SP3 latest patches
Groupwise 2012 SP1
4GB Ram
The POA is uses all the memory growing to 65% before the system is out of memory.
Ran GWCheck structure and content fix.
Opened a SR with Novell.
Found the SLAP error, did the procedures per Tid=7009119
Start the POA everything seem okay, so added couple of user. After all the users got on the system the memory usage started to climb.
Check the logs no errors.
Could this be caused by on of the clients????
Any Idea would help
Thanks
Jody

How many users on this POA? The POA can consume a large amount of RAM, but not normally. Ours is sitting at about .5GB for about 500 heavy users. The GWIA and GWINTER typically grow very fat: 2 -4 GB.
Since you have a SR open, work the problem with the engineer, if it looks like its languishing, you can always ask for an escalation.
Does this server have swap configured? A caption from top might help us to know whats what, including the line for the POA in question.
e.g.
Code:
top - 22:15:59 up 206 days, 15:52, 5 users, load average: 0.47, 0.35, 0.34
Tasks: 201 total, 1 running, 200 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 4.6%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 94.1%id, 0.9%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 24020M total, 23822M used, 198M free, 500M buffers
Swap: 2055M total, 199M used, 1855M free, 18103M cached
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
92 wise 20 0 183m 109m 9064 S 18 0.5 9526:36 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwpoa @gws2_po.poa
63 wise 20 0 3885m 3.4g 9m S 11 14.4 123:49.62 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwia @gwia.cfg
92 wise 20 0 199m 120m 7364 S 4 0.5 3221:05 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwpoa @gws1_po.poa
319 wise 20 0 415m 329m 10m S 3 1.4 4640:24 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwpoa @staff.poa
98 wise 20 0 169m 98m 7532 S 0 0.4 6244:01 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwpoa @gws3_po.poa
40 wise 20 0 144m 80m 9364 S 0 0.3 0:49.84 /opt/novell/groupwise/agents/bin/gwinter @webac80a.waa
-- Bob

My system cannot allocate enough colormap entry. How to set Firefox uses less colormap entry?

I have to use depth 8 and PseudoColor becuase a old program requests. If I run Firefox and my old program, I will get a error "Cannot allocate colormap entry for default background". Can I set Firefox to use less Colormap entry?
Nvidia 450
Thanks.
Jeff

Hello,
meanwhile i found a solution for way a) (JCo RFC Provider) in another thread.
Everything is ok so far in my coding above. BUT nowhere in Documentation i found a hint, that using Jco RFC Provider NOT works with EJB 3.0 but with EJB 2.1 !!!
For this i not only have to create the Local Interface which the Bean has to implement. I further have to create the EBJ 2.1 Interfaces as:
public interface FB_BESCHLAGPAKETLocalHome extends EJBLocalHome {
public com.dihug.kall.eel.FB_BESCHLAGPAKETLocalComponent create() throws javax.ejb.CreateException, java.rmi.RemoteException;
and
public interface FB_BESCHLAGPAKETLocalComponent extends EJBLocalObject {
public void processFunction (Function function);
Doing so, the RFC from Abap to Java works with JCo RFC-Provider
Unfortunatly i didn't found it in documentation that this EBJ 2.1 specific interfaces have to be declared even NW 7.11 is a JEE5 Server with EJB 3 Support and a developer on this plattform would normally go the EJB 3 Way.
Even though i now have a working solution it would be interesting how the JRA Way would go.
kind regards
Matthias

Illustrator CS6 uses less then 1GB RAM out of 8GB.

Here are the specks:
2.93 GHz Intel Core Duo
8GB 1067 MHz RAM
Memory activity:
Right now Illustrator is using 980MB
System Memory:
Free RAM      5GB
Wired           437
Active          1.74
Inactive         877 MB
Used          3GB
Virtual Memory Size 170GB
They boast about Illustrator CS6 using more RAM then 3GB... 3 GB? Mine uses less than 1GB.
What can I do to improve this? Thanks

A script itself wouldn't use much RAM. If you were to open the Activity Monitor, set it to Active Processes and then run the script, you would likely see functions repeatedly using and releasing RAM as the script runs.
If that is what happens, then Illustrator (and the OS) are doing what they're supposed to; using more RAM as needed and releasing it when done. In which case, there's nothing else you can do to speep up the process as RAM is being allocated as needed.

Why does my mac use virtual memory when I still have free physical memory?

I have a 2011 i7 quad core mac, I was hoping it would scream. Most of the time it does. However when trying to edit within FCPX I get a very disappointing experience with many pauses and pin wheels if I don't close every single other program.
I have 8GB of physical memory and when i'm experiencing these problems I see that i still have 1-2 gb of physical memory free or inactive. At the same time FCPX is only using 2gb of memory. I just happened to keep an eye on the VM page in/outs and noticed them going up.
Right now i'm doing some browsing and emailing, that's about it.. its sat with over 4gb of memory free or inactive and yet still the page in/outs is still going up occasionally. It's currently at over 2 million page ins, and over 1 million page outs.
So with so much physical memory free why is this happening!? At the moment the mac feels nice and responsive, but if i start trying to use FCPX i'll start to experience these slowdowns, stalls... whenever i see these i see my main hdd is being accessed whilst the pinwheel is displayed.. I mean i get it, its VM, the hdd is too full, a bit fragmented perhaps, its stalling... but i've got gigs of memory sitting free or inactive... why wont the OS use it!!!
Would my experience improve if i took the plunge and got 16gb of memory instead of 8gb!?
Thanks for your help!

Because without virtual memory, managing computer RAM is a royal pain in the ...
Virtual memory cost you nothing, and gains you huge benefits, even if you do not notice it
What cost you is when you need more real RAM than is available, and things are thown out of RAM, either back to the original file it came from (Read Only information), or pushed out to the swapfiles (/var/vm/*). Then the system has to wait for slower disk access. But even this is better than not being able to run the apps until you quit something else.
(speaking as someone that starting his professional life working with 1" punch paper tape, 80 columns cards, 7-track and 9-track mag tapes, 1MB disks (you heard me right 1 Megabyte), etc..., and trust me when I tell you that virtual memory is a god send to software development).
There are a lot of problems running a modern operating system with out virtual memory. For example all the shared libraries and frameworks that provide services to an application would all need to be compiled into the application, which means every application gets bigger and instead of having a single copy of the shared library or framework, you would have dozens of copies wasting your RAM.
Without virtual memory, you would be required to find a contiguous chunk of RAM to run your application. Think of this like going out to dinner by yourself, you can find any available table, but if you go to dinner with your extended family, you need a table for 10 to 15, and if you are going to dinner with your high school graduation class, you will need hundreds of seats all next to each other and a very large table. In the later situations you have to wait until the resturante has enough contiguous space, which means you have to wait until other diners finish. There may be lots of empty tables, but they are not together, and your group wants/needs to sit together. Virtual memory allows gathering any 4K chunk of RAM, building a virtual memory map for all those random 4K chunks, and make it look like one big contiguous chunk of RAM, so you can run your application right away, no waiting.
Going back to shared libraries and frameworks. This code will need to have addresses resolved so they branch to the correct locations during execution, and it will need to have addresses resolved on where its program variables are located in RAM. Using virtual memory, you can local a shared object into RAM, then place it in everyone's virtual memory map at the exact same RAM address. This means everyone can use the exact same code, and since everyone is using it at the same RAM address, it makes life so much easier for the operating system (translation, less work, less wasted CPU time, faster execution).
When a program wants to grow, for example a web browser loading a web page (and its images) into RAM, it needs to allocate additional RAM. In the contiguous RAM model, you need to get control of the RAM that imediately following your program, but if that RAM is being used by someone else, you have to wait until that program goes away.
Virtual memory provides protection from another program looking at and modifying your program's RAM. Malware would just love for virtual memory to go away.
You want virtual memory. What you do not want is excessive paging activity.
If you are concerned, then you can launch Applicaitons -> Utilities -> Terminal. Once you have a terminal command prompt, enter the following command:
sar -g 60 100
which will tell you the number of 4k pages written to /var/vm/pagefile ever minute for 100 minutes (modify the numbers to suit your tastes). You can then go about your normal usage, and come back later to see how much you have been using the pagefiles. If you have mostly zeros, and an occasional small burst, this is noise, and not worth worrying about. If you have sustained pageout activity, with higher numbers, then you should either consider running less things all at the same time, or looking for an application that is being greedy with its memory use (or has a memory leak), OR get more RAM for your Mac if you need to do all those things at once.
But do not complain about virtual memory. Life would be much worse without it. Then again if you have a better idea, write a research paper, and get operating system vendors (as well as hardware vendors) to implement your ideas. I am serious, as I've seen many accepted computing ideas be overturned by good new ideas.

Blue screen when using 2 memory modules !!

Hi,
When I use two memory modules (installed on bank 1 and 2), windows xp fails to install randomly (sometimes at the beginning, sometimes even after a rebooting...) and generates a blue screen of death... !
However, they are correctly visible at boot time.
But when I use only one module, it works fine (I tried with the first and the second module separately). These modules are strictly the same.
What should I do now ?
Just a remark : my FSB is at 100 Mhz. Is it normal ? (newbie question)
Thanks
David
Here is my configuration :
Athlon XP 2600+
2x512 Mb DDR PC2700 (MDT)
120 Gb UDMA6 IDE master on IDE1
80 Gb UDMA5 IDE slave on IDE1
DVD UDMA2 IDE master on IDE2
Firewire disabled
RAID activated (but not used so far)
LAN and Audio enabled

I think 300 watts is a way too SMALL for what your trying to run. Check your label on the power supply and see what your 3.3 volt and 5 volt supply amperage is. Anything less than 200 watts combined or about 28amps on 3.3 and 35 amps on the 5volt is going to give you grief. You need a bigger power supply. Recommend Antec or Enermax as the solution. Antec SL350 or higher.
Newegg has good prices and great service
Antec Power Supplies

Customize system to use less memory

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for