Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18468
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| Subject | Re: memory usage vs fan usage |
| Date | 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500 |
| Organization | Usenet Elder |
| Message-ID | <e0soeyu4gp7i$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> (permalink) |
| References | <m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > Anyway, I've always been a bit suspicious of the MemoryCompression > service, so I'm experimenting with it turned off for a bit. > (powershell disable-mmagent -mc) As far as memory compression goes, it might has some value on low-end computers. See the following about that wonderful OS "feature". https://www.makeuseof.com/windows-memory-compression-guide/ Even if the data is held entirely in memory, like a buffer or cache, compression takes CPU cycles, and more CPU cycles generate more heat. Every read will have to decompress the data before it can be used. Every write will have to compress the data. That is overhead on the CPU. Apparently the Memory Compression service is always active. I have 64 GB of RAM, and don't use anywhere near that much at any time. Yet Task Manager's Performance tab under Memory shows "Inuse: 6.3 GB (204 MB) Available: 52.0 GB" which is the amount of RAM in use with the compressed size in parenthesis, and the last is how much is free. No idea why anything in RAM got compressed considering over 50 GB of RAM is unused. I was going to ask how much free RAM you have, but I have gobs, and RAM compression is still getting used. Because compression is involved means there are more CPU cycles for the same amount of data, so there will be more heat with compression enabled. Considering the overhead involved to compress on write, and decompress on read, with lots more CPU cycles to do both, seems another Microsoft gimmick most likely to get their OS working on low-end computers (those with not much RAM). You mentioned how much physical RAM you have in your computers, but not how much is free after loading whatever programs you often use concurrently. So, yep, I'll ask: how much free RAM do you have? I've seen some gamers noting they go from 60 fps to 70 fps with memory compression disabled. Some users have reported a whopping change from 30 fps to 120 fps. 3D graphics users have noted the app is slower when memory compression is enabled. Less overhead in CPU cycles to compress on write and decompress on read. Impact would be affected a lot by the performance of the CPU: a low-end slow CPU would take longer to compress and decompress. https://www.elevenforum.com/t/enable-or-disable-memory-compression-in-windows-10-and-windows-11.3555/ With 64 GB of RAM (often only 10% of it in use), and 1 TB SSD NVMe, 2 TB SSD, and 4 TB spinner all of which are less than half occupied, or much less, I certainly don't need RAM and disk compression trying to save resources that far exceed the demand. Considering how memory compression is not saving me from some low-memory disaster, I'll be disabling it. get-mmagent in Powershell (with admin privs) shows it is currently enabled on my desktop PC. I see no point in adding all that CPU overhead for compression when I have gobs of free RAM. disable-mmagent -mc Even if I get no performance boost from not compressing into RAM, I'd rather the CPU run cooler by not wasting cycle on superfluous compression.
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-11 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 15:16 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-17 12:09 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:57 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 11:59 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 19:40 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 12:04 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:36 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:25 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:54 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 16:16 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 08:17 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 05:14 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-24 09:08 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-24 20:59 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 07:40 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-25 19:13 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-25 22:29 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-26 10:31 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-26 15:05 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-19 14:36 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-19 13:56 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-19 09:28 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 15:07 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:25 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 19:30 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 14:09 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-18 11:13 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 21:33 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:12 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-04-17 20:07 -0500
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 12:08 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-18 18:09 +0000
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-18 19:36 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-17 22:29 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-04-17 22:17 +0100
Re: memory usage vs fan usage "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-04-18 02:19 +0200
Re: memory usage vs fan usage Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-04-18 05:52 -0400
csiph-web