Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18477
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| Subject | Re: memory usage vs fan usage |
| Date | 2025-04-18 03:15 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vtsu5r$2h9r6$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> <vtr93h$10brs$1@dont-email.me> <m6d183Fcl4lU3@mid.individual.net> |
On Thu, 4/17/2025 2:57 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> I know it doesn't fully hide from taskmgr or procexp, but why
> does it have to hide what it's doing from them? I mean it must
> have a .exe or .dll somewhere, how much CPU usage does it do behind a curtain?
When the Memory Compressor launches, one of the data fields has
an empty string in it, and that seems to prevent Task Manager
from displaying it. It does not stop Process Explorer from showing it
and showing the cycles used.
And as you noted, there is a correspondence between the Hard Fault
statistic, and the level of memory compressor activity. When I attempted
to get an actual Hard Fault statistic, everything was 0. Whereas the
Page Faults in perfmon.msc were measurable (as they're not necessarily
Hard Faults). perfmon.exe /res shows a bunch of 0 values.
https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/askperf/the-basics-of-page-faults/373120
My naive malloc64.exe program, really doesn't generate any pressure. The memory
usage ramp is relatively constant, there seems to be a "bump" in the behavior
when it hits some sort of reserved section, but the memory compressor
doesn't actually run to any extent. The (compressed) field changes a bit,
and the (compressed) value can change on subsequent runs, but still involves
numbers well below 1GB. Whereas reports of "mischief" find (6GB) for the
compressed field, and the activity seems to go on constantly when it happens.
*******
I can find reports with fairly high (compressed) values in Task Manager.
But no real explanation of why. Apparently something related to search (SearchApp?)
can be responsible for this.
https://www.go-euc.com/performance-value-of-memory-compression/
"An important note, as shown in the screenshot, when enabling memory compression,
page combining is also automatically enabled.
Page combining may help reduce memory usage on servers which have a lot of private,
pageable pages with identical contents (which is likely to occur on multisession hosts).
Page combining causes the memory manager to periodically combine pages in physical memory
that have identical content. The tradeoff for page combining comes in the form of
increased CPU usage and this may have a negative effect on the scalability and or performance.
"
PS> get-mmagent
ApplicationLaunchPrefetching : True
ApplicationPreLaunch : True
MaxOperationAPIFiles : 512
MemoryCompression : True <===
OperationAPI : True
PageCombining : False <=== Client OS, this is off.
PSComputerName :
Paul
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