OT: XP TaskManager - Physical memory vs PageFile?

Discussion in 'Asus' started by PeteCresswell, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. Tried posting this on the Windoze XP General NG, but no luck.

    But I have an Asus motherboard... so maybe I'm technically
    on-topic....


    When I look at Windows Task Manager | Performance | PF Usage, I
    get a consist ant half-gig (545 mb at the moment).

    Yet Physical Memory (K) says I've got (at the moment) 143,742k
    available.

    Two questions:
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    1) Do the PF/Physical reflect an opportunity for more
    optimization? i.e. If I've got physical memory available,
    wouldn't it be better tb using that instead of the page file?

    2) Is PF usage unconditionally an undesirable thing?
    i.e. If I add enough memory and tweak the right
    settings, could I get it down to or close to zero?
    --------------------------------------------------------------
     
    PeteCresswell, Jun 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm starting to feel a little better since seeing my CommitCharge.Peak
    at 814,080 - which seems like it would have had the 768 megs of memory
    thrashing for at least some period during my current sesh.

    Any thoughts on whether Commit Charge.Peak includes memory used by the
    system for file caching? I see Physical Memory.SystemCache =
    2,980,476 as I write this.
     
    PeteCresswell, Jun 10, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.