Copying large files slows the system down to a crawl? I found a solution for me

After copying large files in Windows XP or doing something memory intensive such as rendering a video, my system would slow down to a crawl. I found the solution to the problem even though when I searched I found a dozen people with the same problem with no one giving them the right answer:

Right click on My Computer > Properties > Advance TAB > Performance Settings button >
Advanced TAB > SELECT: Programs under Memory Usage.

If System cache is selected instead, the system would slow down to a crawl after copying large files or Video rendering. (for me)


My system still slows down a little bit when copying large files but not to a crawl.

Now that I know what helps, can I further optimize it so I don't have to reboot to regain system speed after doing something like copying a few GBs from one internal drive to another?


Question #2:
Right click on My Computer > Properties > Advance TAB > Performance Settings button > Advanced TAB > Virtual Memory Change >

I set both the Initial size as well as Maximum size to be the same, 1536 MB and set it to a drive different from where my Windows XP is installed


Does this also help earlier versions of Windows or only Windows XP?

For Example, Windows Me > Right click on My Computer > Properties > Performance TAB > Virtual Memory > specify virtual memory settings

Should they be specified similar to Windows XP or not?

_____________________
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ AXMH 2500 FQQ4C
IQYHA 0348 SPMW
2 x 512MB Centon PC3200 (Samsung chips) @ 9 4 4 3
[200] FSB x 12.5 = 2500 MHz @ 1.85 Vcore with memory frequency at 100% [200 FSB] @ 2.90 Vdimm and 1.6 Vdd
Epox 8RDA3+ v2.1, BIOS 07/29/2004
Thermalright SLK-900A with 80x38mm Delta EFB0812HHE fan
AIW 9600XT 128MB; Antec SX-835II case ; 380W Antec TruePower2 TPII-380
Five 80x25mm Case Fans

c627627 said:

After copying large files in Windows XP or doing something memory intensive such as rendering a video, my system would slow down to a crawl. I found the solution to the problem even though when I searched I found a dozen people with the same problem with no one giving them the right answer:

Right click on My Computer > Properties > Advance TAB > Performance Settings button >
Advanced TAB > SELECT: Programs under Memory Usage.

If System cache is selected, the system would slow down to a crawl after copying large files or Video rendering. (for me)

Click to expand...

Here's a MSKB article I used to always refer folks to that had questions about changing "Programs" to "System Cache" (under "Memory usage")...

Things to consider before you enable System cache mode in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/895932

I set both the Initial size as well as Maximum size to be the same, 1536 MB and set it to a drive different from where my Windows XP is installed

Click to expand...

... and another site re: virtual memory:

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

How big should the page file be?

There is a great deal of myth surrounding this question. Two big fallacies are:

* The file should be a fixed size so that it does not get fragmented, with minimum and maximum set the same
* The file should be 2.5 times the size of RAM (or some other multiple)

Both are wrong in a modern, single-user system. A machine using Fast User switching is a special case

Click to expand...

Does this also help earlier versions of Windows or only Windows XP?

Click to expand...

I've tried setting both min. and max. to the same values when running earlier OS's including W2K and XP both, but never noticed a difference in performance... nothing noticeable anyway. XP handles VM differently than earlier versions of Windows, and as such setting both settings to the same value IMO is a waste of time. I'm sure some will argue that setting both to the same value increases the performance on their particular system... if that's the case, so be it. The only way to find out for sure is to experiment, and see for yourself if the changes make any noticeable impact on performance.

Excellent reads, much obliged. I also didn't bother with these because I tried long ago and noticed no difference.

I revisited this issue due to my recent experience with memory problems.


"How big a file will turn out to be needed depends very much on your work-load... large graphics and movie making may need a great deal. "

I have decided to leave the initial setting at 1536 MB for Windows XP and not revert to my previous default of 768 MB, but to not have a maximum size, except you have to assign a numeric value to maximum size, so I thought I'd set it to 3 GB or 3072 MB ?

I also decided to have a large initial setting for Windows Me at 1024 MB.

If you want to enable System Cache, buy a UPS, and have it shut your system down in case of a power outage.

BTW; moving files is not processive intensive. Its disk intensive. The problem you face is SEEK time. Every time you want to access a file from a disk that is beign used you will confront this. In addition, If your drives are on the same PATA cord, you will also see a drop in performance, when accessing or moving files between these drives.

On rare occasions when there is power interruption of a few seconds, my UPS Battery Backup kicks in & saves me from rebooting or at least gives me time to save and close. I'm not sure what that has to do with my memory performance though.

The original problem had to do after all the operations where complete and the system did not regain resources.

My Memory Usage was set to System cache instead of Programs (don't know how & why that happened) but I would think the many people who had the same problem would want to check if it helped them like it helped me.


My operating system(s) are on one parallel drive. My other (parallel) drives are connected through a PCI controller.


I would like to find out how I could test real life difference between having my Virtual Memory remain on C: drive (operating system drive which in my case is FAT32) vs. having it on my NTFS drive that is connected through a PCI controller, away from where my Windows XP is...


Some would recommend this... but I'm interested in real life difference.


Would it help when I have to stop using my system to let an operation finish (such as video rendering)?

Of course a dual processor and upgrading my system is what would really help but out of curiosity, I sure would like to test this controversial issue of where Virtual Memory should be kept.


_____________________
AMD Athlon XP 2500+ AXMH 2500 FQQ4C
IQYHA 0348 SPMW
2 x 512MB Centon PC3200 (Samsung chips) @ 9 4 4 3
[200] FSB x 12.5 = 2500 MHz @ 1.85 Vcore with memory frequency at 100% [200 FSB] @ 2.90 Vdimm and 1.6 Vdd
Epox 8RDA3+ v2.1, BIOS 07/29/2004
Thermalright SLK-900A with 80x38mm Delta EFB0812HHE fan
AIW 9600XT 128MB; Antec SX-835II case ; 380W Antec TruePower2 TPII-380
Five 80x25mm Case Fans

Hm, when I set my Virtual Memory to 1.5 GB min and 3 GB max, it reverts to set both min & max to 1.5GB.

So I seem to have a choice of either not setting Virtual Memory size or setting it to the same values...

Yeah, XP was designed at a time when things where a bit smaller, and duel core wasnt around... Even the Systems/Program option is limited. Systems setting were made for multi-tasking and server applications, and Program setting was for the normal desktop user. Systems setting is paired down version of what comes with Windows 2003.

However XP wasnt made for more then 2 gigs of RAM. Infact it doesnt work with more then 2 gigs. In all honesty, 2 gigs of RAM is a TON of memory... What we need now is processors that can access the ram faster, and not more of it.

Windows XP also doesnt Cache well on systems with high amounts of RAM. It tends to swap things to the disk way to early.

This isnt BAD, per say... Windows XP was optimized for systems built 3+ years ago. Todays systems are totally different. We have SATA, DDR2, Dual Cores, Quad Cores, PCI-E, Direct X9, Sound Cards with processors on them that would have made computers 5-10 years ago look slow, Video Capture Cards and HTPC's...

Life is good now, but Vista will open the door to our new machines, and what they are capable of. Expect Bumps, Flamers, and Frustration if you plan on going Vista early. I know one of my Machines will be Vista very soon after its official PUBLIC release.

Nice web page redduce900, checked my settings,programs. At home work station
I have also tryed playing with VM, and for me it works the best just letting windows handle it.

I know my Hardware RAID-5 array's STR's improved when I disabled "Write-Back Caching" on that Drive (The Card has its own Write Back Cache w/256MB or DDR-333 ECC RAM). I guess it was like having 2 independant Caches (the OS's and the Card's) running in series? Anyway, Drive to Drive transfers are faster now, and sustain full speed w/o slowdowns...

I believe ticking "Background Services" in "Processor Scheduling" prioritizes drivers and stuff (a MUST for an Audio Workstation that needs low-latency ASIO Drivers and "Plug-ins" that are considered "Background Services"). Just a tid-bit of info from that same screen...

Randy, your assumption is fact...

Their is a priority system for windows. It is a number from 1-32

Each application process has a priority number assigned to it. The higher the number, the lower in the querry its processed.

What the Forground setting does, is it gives a -1 priority to the user whos logged in. The Services settings assigns priority to the applications that run as services. These Applications run under a Super Admin user and will get priority over your current user application. This means that your Transaction Service, or IIS, or any of the other services will get priority over the applications.

Now of course, system critical services and even applications set their own process can set priority well above the standard "Normal" process. This is left up to the developer.

Now if you go into the task manager (alt+ctrl+del) then go to process, right click and select assign priority, you will see a simplified system (5 labeled priorities). This allows the USER to assign priority. When Im running processes, like MPEG encryption, and I want to watch a movie, I simply go into the process section and put Power DVD up one process level. You can also drop the process level of the application running in the background, but this doesnt work if the application opens other applications.

With multi-cores, you may also assign processess to specific prossessors. This sometimes works, but many DLL's and any services run as CPU independent applications. You may get issues with competing Disk Access Priorty compitition, or Ram access compitition. Also, you will limit any Multi-threaded applications from running on multiple chips. This may cause you to not use all of your processor potential (Power DVD doesnt run 100% on a single chip).