TFW Diablo 3 is using 9GB of ram :|

General Discussion
05/31/2019 01:43 PMPosted by DTMAce
Especially now with SSD drives. Less wear on them with the swap disabled, and if you have enough memory you aren't going to run into real problems anyway.


You do know that whle swapfiles may be listed as something like 80 MB in size (typical swapfile chunk size), they're only a filename, header, and table of contents and are actually empty and not occupying the full 80 MB until written to, right? Leaving swap on does not do anything to SSDs. And in the event that one hits max RAM, one avoids the NTFS kernel crashing (OS X's kernel will crash on startup with VM disabled).

Also, modern SSDs have endurance ratings in the high hundreds of TB and some even going into the PB range. A tiny sliver of mostly empty swapfiles isn't going to do jack to an SSD and turning them off will cause problems for most users.
06/01/2019 09:45 AMPosted by TheTias
05/31/2019 01:43 PMPosted by DTMAce
Especially now with SSD drives. Less wear on them with the swap disabled, and if you have enough memory you aren't going to run into real problems anyway.


You do know that whle swapfiles may be listed as something like 80 MB in size (typical swapfile chunk size), they're only a filename, header, and table of contents and are actually empty and not occupying the full 80 MB until written to, right? Leaving swap on does not do anything to SSDs. And in the event that one hits max RAM, one avoids the NTFS kernel crashing (OS X's kernel will crash on startup with VM disabled).

Also, modern SSDs have endurance ratings in the high hundreds of TB and some even going into the PB range. A tiny sliver of mostly empty swapfiles isn't going to do jack to an SSD and turning them off will cause problems for most users.


Well, I must not be in the most users category, because I have yet:

1: Have a crash on my systems because of low memory due to not having a swap file, and
2: While I'm aware of modern SSD statistics, not every system I have had was always running on a modern version.

3: Do you ever watch your task manager with regards to swap file usage? I recall seeing them highly active, especially in lower memory equipped systems. So I call BS on them doing nothing, even with plenty of RAM.

After nearly 10 years of running my systems this way and NOT having problems, I can't see a reason to have them enabled.

However, (and I stress this) not all systems are equal. Those running 8GB or less should keep their VM enabled. You can static set it so its set to a specific size if you wish however. Less memory, more VM should be available. If you are a user that needs extra memory space for running multiple or extensive memory usage apps, you SHOULD have VM enabled. In fact, some apps may not work without it.

My 16GB laptop is actually set to 500MB, and that was only due to when I first bought it, it would randomly crash. (I set it high enough to capture the logs) Turns out that was a bad SSD. I just haven't set it back to disabled yet.

My main system here runs 32GB, and swap file is disabled. Works perfectly fine.

But, hey, everyone can run them how they see fit.
06/01/2019 12:21 PMPosted by DTMAce
3: Do you ever watch your task manager with regards to swap file usage? I recall seeing them highly active, especially in lower memory equipped systems. So I call BS on them doing nothing, even with plenty of RAM.


The way Windows reports swap usage can be somewhat misleading. OS X and to much the same extent Linux suffer from that as well. But when a swapfile is created only its header and ToC are written. It is appended to when needed, and not until then.

Also, assume someone has a situation where their RAM is low enough to require ten 80 MB swapfiles and they are all actually filled with data during the course of a day's time. That's 800 MB. That's 292 GB per year. That's well under any SSD's drive writes per day. Nearly all SSDs, even the cheap ones, have at least a 0.30 DWPD rating. For a craptacular 128 GB SSD, that would be roughly ~40 GB per day. Swap isn't going to write anywhere near 40 GB per day, and the higher the capacity of the SSD, the higher its DWPD rating.

Swap isn't an issue for SSDs. Game patching does more to SSDs than swap ever will.
06/01/2019 08:47 PMPosted by TheTias
06/01/2019 12:21 PMPosted by DTMAce
3: Do you ever watch your task manager with regards to swap file usage? I recall seeing them highly active, especially in lower memory equipped systems. So I call BS on them doing nothing, even with plenty of RAM.


The way Windows reports swap usage can be somewhat misleading. OS X and to much the same extent Linux suffer from that as well. But when a swapfile is created only its header and ToC are written. It is appended to when needed, and not until then.

Also, assume someone has a situation where their RAM is low enough to require ten 80 MB swapfiles and they are all actually filled with data during the course of a day's time. That's 800 MB. That's 292 GB per year. That's well under any SSD's drive writes per day. Nearly all SSDs, even the cheap ones, have at least a 0.30 DWPD rating. For a craptacular 128 GB SSD, that would be roughly ~40 GB per day. Swap isn't going to write anywhere near 40 GB per day, and the higher the capacity of the SSD, the higher its DWPD rating.

Swap isn't an issue for SSDs. Game patching does more to SSDs than swap ever will.


Standing on one aspect such as wear statistics to back up your argument is not really backing it up that well.

That is simply one reason that I choose to set them up the way I have. Not the only one.

Performance? Maybe in a slight fashion. Would it be noticeable in day-to-day tasks? Unlikely.

Reliability? In some ways it could decrease it (if you run out of actual memory space)

Keep in mind I have been building Windows based systems from scratch since the days of Windows 3.1. Granted much has changed over the years and much has amazingly been similar.

For example, before the more recent versions of Office (2013 maybe?) they always had template bugs, especially with Word's normal.dot file. The most common problem with Word operating properly for YEARS could only be solved by completely exiting Word, removing that file, then re-opening the program to force it to make a new one.

I haven't had to do that for a long time now thankfully, they finally fixed that one (I hope).

Point is, I have been around many blocks with setting up Windows and swap files.

Back then the most common thing was allocating double the amount of your memory as a set size for your VM. Granted, back then you rarely encountered a system with more than 512MB of memory too. I can remember all the 32 and 64MB systems that ran Windows 95. And anything over 128MB had issues back then, if you could even find a system that had that much.

Hell I have forgotten more than I know now from over the past 25 years.

Anyway, I digress.

Point is, the setup works. It works for me. If you want to use it that way, it will work for you, if you have similar setups or uses. But not all things are equal, and having the option to setup a system different ways and experiment on things like this are not going to ruin anything or hurt the system. Someone tries the change, has trouble, they can change it back. Or they try it and nothing happens. Or they notice a slight improvement, whatever.

But dismissing it as a no way to go thing is not going to work either.

Options are always good.

Anyway. Just my take on it. But good debate non-the-less.

Game on.
There are a whole lot of forums and sites out there with adjustments and tweaks for Windows users.

One thing I highly recommend, especially if you have an SSD based system:

Turn off Fast Start.

Two reasons:

1: You have an SSD. You're computer is not going to be that much faster with Fast Start enabled.

2: If you ever want to actually force Windows to restart, you literally have to choose restart on the Start Menu. Shut down does not actually force a restart anymore with Fast Start enabled.

What it does instead is act like a mini-hibernation. After enough shut downs and turn on's your Windows 8, 8.1, and 10 start to get stupid. Then you have to choose Restart. By disabling Fast Start, you can prevent this problem and not really have an issue with boot time, since you are on an SSD. Now with HDD systems, Fast Start can make a more noticeable difference. But again, you have to keep in mind that you will need to choose Restart every so often to "cold start" Windows.

My nvme enabled SSD based laptop can actually hibernate to drive and shut down in less than 10 seconds with its 16GB of memory. Which to me is impressive. But start time is even faster in that circumstance. From a cold start it takes about twice as long. Maybe 15 or so seconds to the desktop not including the time it takes me to log in. (hell I think that takes me longer than it does to start up)

My desktop takes a good 45 seconds or more for a cold boot. True it has a 1TB SATA based SSD, but the delay is due to the RAID controller start up for my critical data mirror and the other 5 or 6 drives it has to load, not to mention all the other crap I have connected to it. The more drives, the more time it takes for the most part, especially if you have HDDs.

Sorry, just more info to waste time with. Take it as you will.
With the amount of RAM a lot of systems these days, swap is probably almost never going to be used (which is why you won't get any wear and tear on your SSD!). There's probably no reason to turn it off... or even to turn it on really.

If you're hitting swap, you have bigger problems (your application probably leaks memory!). And your system will crawl... perhaps even to the point where you will give up waiting to fix it and just hard reset it! Maybe it's less terrible with SSD. Should still be pretty awful though! Even SSD's bandwidth using the latest SATA 3.3 is a peanut compared to RAM transfer speeds.

And I'm sure you don't want to be playing D3 when you start swapping. That's a hard reset right there. Think you can alt+tab and get Task Manager and kill it? Nope! Unless you happened to be running Task Manager, you'll probably be waiting a good while to start Task Manager! The disk bandwidth will be fully saturated and the kernel will be very busy servicing VM and filesystem junk! And let's say you did manage to kill a swapping D3 in task manager... it takes an extra special long amount of time for the kernel to actually kill it and clean that mess up!

So they should fix the memory leak and everyone can forget about swap files! Honestly... In this day in age... You will almost never hit swap (for correctly functioning programs!).
06/01/2019 09:11 PMPosted by DTMAce
Standing on one aspect such as wear statistics to back up your argument is not really backing it up that well.


That's not just one wear statistic backing that up. The SSDs of the last few years aren't like the old X-25M SSD Intel used to make (that's the oooooold one during the generation of SSDs that actually used SLC instead of MLC or now TLC (QLC is in use, but good god I wouldn't want that in anything but maybe a Raspberry Pi console emulator system since QLC's endurance and write capability blow).

Again, swap won't kill an SSD. And anyone on a low RAM system would be better off getting more RAM before an SSD anyway.

06/01/2019 09:11 PMPosted by DTMAce
Performance? Maybe in a slight fashion. Would it be noticeable in day-to-day tasks? Unlikely.


There's no argument about performance here. An SSD being used as the swap location is going to be hundreds of times faster than a HD would, and still not wear out because of it. You'd literally have to go to the ultra extreme end of the spectrum to find use cases that destroy SSDs with swap. Good luck with that. ;)

06/01/2019 09:11 PMPosted by DTMAce
For example, before the more recent versions of Office (2013 maybe?) they always had template bugs, especially with Word's normal.dot file. The most common problem with Word operating properly for YEARS could only be solved by completely exiting Word, removing that file, then re-opening the program to force it to make a new one.

I haven't had to do that for a long time now thankfully, they finally fixed that one (I hope).


While this is a nice example of your knowledge base (which I have no reason to doubt), it has nothing to do with SSDs. Also, that scenario has happened to multiple apps over the years. OS X has had its share of that too. And yes, Office sucks sometimes. Thankfully there's OpenOffice and Office Libre as alternatives. :)

06/01/2019 09:11 PMPosted by DTMAce
Back then the most common thing was allocating double the amount of your memory as a set size for your VM. Granted, back then you rarely encountered a system with more than 512MB of memory too. I can remember all the 32 and 64MB systems that ran Windows 95. And anything over 128MB had issues back then, if you could even find a system that had that much.


Ewww. Yeah, the old VM mechanism was...yuck. I do remember the 2x RAM = VM setting. Usually the OS did it automatically if left to defaults, but not always. As for systems that had that much RAM - my old PowerMac 7500 ended up being outfitted by me with 1 GB RAM. Crazy insane in those days. 8x 128 MB 60ns FP EDO DIMMs (say that three times fast, I dare ya!) and a 1 MB L2 cache DIMM ($550 on its own!). I actually had as much RAM as I did HD space on its first HD. But I'm out outlier there. Power(Mac) user FTW!

06/01/2019 09:11 PMPosted by DTMAce
Options are always good.


Indeed. You'll see me arguing for that left and right. Even got a bit of steam under the collar with the GGG devs for not having a customizable loot filter system that did not make text so tiny people with visual impairments can't read it. I can't use Neversink's filters because of that - the text is so tiny and the background so opaque behind the item text it's illegible for me. Shame too, since NS' filters are well done.

As for Fast Start, that gets turned off by me on every system, HD or not. Why? You can miss critical information if you're trying to troubleshoot. And I've found that "shortcutting" your way to the desktop just makes the system bog down once the desktop is loaded because all modern OSes prioritize desktop loading first, then background tasks after. Slow and steady wins the race and doesn't make using the system feel crappy.

06/01/2019 10:34 PMPosted by nslay
So they should fix the memory leak and everyone can forget about swap files! Honestly... In this day in age... You will almost never hit swap (for correctly functioning programs!).


Unless it's a version of OS X that will hit swap and/or compressed RAM before you actually run out of RAM. 10.10 and 10.11 both do that. You can be at 16 GB used and 16 GB free in a 32 GB system like mine and still get compressed RAM and even hit swap. Apple prioritizes things stupidly sometimes. Thankfully 10.12 and later fixed the swap issue, but not compressed RAM. I can still hit that with just 16 GB used.

Alas, they never resolved the media caching in OS X. I can binge watch DVDs and after four of them will actually hit swap just because of the caching and OS X's refusal to let go of the oldest cached data like a sensible kernel would. :shrug:

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum