On 2012-10-16 11:17, Andy Levy wrote:> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM,
Xu Hong <icehong_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi to all developers
>> First, I apologize for weak English.
>>
>> I have 4G physical memory on windows XP sp3 , and to get better
>> performance I disabled virtual memory.
>
> In what way does this "get better performance"? This may have been
> applicable 15 years ago under some conditions, but any OS released
> since 2000 or so is smarter than you will be when it comes to memory
> management. Enable the swapfile. Just let it be. How do you get
> "better performance" when your system runs out of memory?
I do this too, so I'll tell you what I mean by "get better performance".
If I have my a swap file enabled, there are times when switch to an
application that I haven't used in a while (minutes/hours) and it takes
many, many seconds before it becomes responsive.
Windows has moved that application (something like Firefox at 400 megs
or maybe much more) out to disk to free up space for disk caching or
something similar.
I would MUCH prefer to have a slightly smaller disk cache than have to
wait 20 seconds to task-switch to Firefox. Under those circumstances,
it ends up being faster to kill Firefox and restart it -- which seems
like a strange situation to be in -- it should never be faster to load
an application than task-switch to it.
So I disable the swap file to avoid those situations.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=3021188
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2012-10-16 18:56:48 CEST