Right, I do plan to have a test server to see any benefit if at all. Odd, no one commented on the -heapsize question. dex
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking Thats up to you, it will do no permanent damage, and unless IOPageLockLimit is set to a completely arbritrary value it will also remain stable. Unfortunately there isn't at this point a completely definable optimum, it is dependant on your hardware and software configuration and you will need to test, essentially for, each new norhtbridge, as bus latencies are the killer here. dexion wrote: > it seems to handle things very well, i might want to just leave well enough > alone. Waste of ram though > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James Tucker > Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 1:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [hlds] windows 2003 memory tweaking > > > Dunno, but it's easy enough to change the session manager options.... > > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session > Manager\Memory Management > > In particular - the large system cache option will lift more of the > kernel into ram - this may or may not be advantageous - look at page > faults for your processes - might be a good idea to get pmon from > systeminternals. > > disablepagingexecutive will page less data during general system run > time, this is not always an advantage as windows dynamic paging > algorithm is quite strong. > > there is another option you can add here to change your IOPageLockLimit > (key not there by default), this allows you to specify the amount of ram > windows will allow for IO paging operations. > > dexion wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>Just wondering about something. I have all windows2003 boxes and run >>multiple instances of hlds and srcds. I notice for instance that if I run > > x > >>bumber of servers I am using 1.6 gigs of ram total, but only about 1000 > > of > >>that would be in the actual physical ram. The rest is is virtual. I have 2 >>gigs of ram per box. My question would be, is there any performance gain > > in > >>trying to push more of the hlds/srcds process into physical ram? I dont >>really experience any problems, but I would like to use the ram as opposed >>the virtual since I have it why not use it if there is a benefit. Would >>the -heapsize switch help since I do not use it? Anyone out there know how >>to get windows to be more sparing with the virtual and push more into >>physical ram? Why would the os want to use any virtual since im under the >>physical ram in the first place? Seems silly. >>tia >>dex >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > > please visit: > >>http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds >> > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds
