GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>>>>>> physical RAM.

>>>>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>>>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

>>>>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.

>>>>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.

>>>>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM,
>>>>> which can operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second
>>>>> point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to
>>>>> or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.

>>>> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.

>>> Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages it will never need, so
>>> swaps them out to the page file.

>> That isnt what Win is doing when you have enough physical
>> ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

>>> So your copy of windows can see into the future!!!! Can it predict
>>> the lottery numbers as well? Perhaps a weather forcast?

>> You'll end up blind if you dont watch out, child.

> I might go blind if I read any more of your mad ravings!

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified
>>> with a complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can
>>> swap out of its 2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this -
>>> just don't load those pages in the first place?!?

>> Using your mindlessly silly line, if you have 1G of physical ram and
>> are seeing some swap file use due to not having enough physical ram,
>> and you would have enough physical ram with 2G, there is no point in
>> adding the extra, because that wont change how Win uses the swap file.

> It has taken 4 days dynaRod and you have finally got it half right...

We'll see...

> You are clearly wrong in saying there is no point adding more RAM,
> but you are spot on with the final sentence - windows DOES NOT change its algorithm for swapfile
> usage based on RAM size.

Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel, and its completely
trivial to prove that assertion is just plain pig ignorant drivel.

AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.

> I shall have another attempt to explain this to you:

Have fun explaining the effect I have just described.

> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as much physical RAM available at
> any one time. In other words, if you have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will
> still insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available RAM as high as possible.

That is just plain wrong. And its completely trivial to prove
that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong.

> If something that has been swapped out is
> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile,

And that is just plain wrong too, and its completely trivial to
prove that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong too.

> introducing a performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.

All you have ever done is proved to the world that you dont
actually have a clue about how Win uses the page file when
you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file.

> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no performance drop - simple as that.

Wrong, as always. Its nothing like as simple as that and
completely trivial to prove that its nothing like as simple as that.

Even kony has never actually been stupid
enough to claim its as simple as that either.

> If all the applications in use manage to fill up the physical RAM as in your scenario, then the OS
> starts to use the page file as RAM, causing the machine to run very slowly indeed, so adding extra
> RAM WILL fix this problem,

It wouldnt if your stupid claim above was true about how Win uses the swap file.

> but won't change the algorithm used by windows - under normal usage, it will continue to swap
> pages out in an attempt to keep as much physical RAM available at any one time,

No it doesnt, and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

> so when these pages are required there is a performance degredation compared with running with no
> swapfile.

Its completely trivial to prove that that doesnt happen in that situation
where there is enough physical ram for what the apps etc need.

> Does that make sense,

Nope, makes absolutely no sense whatever and its completely trivial
to prove that it doesnt happen like that when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

All you have done is prove to the world that you dont actually have a
clue about how Win uses the swap file when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway and that
you are actually so stupid that you cant prove how Win uses the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to be able to do without a swap
file and have one anyway.