Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-11 > #18479
| From | Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| Subject | Re: memory usage vs fan usage |
| Date | 2025-04-18 05:24 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vtt5ov$2njr1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <m6cgr0Fa4thU1@mid.individual.net> <e0soeyu4gp7i$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> <m6d96qFdrguU1@mid.individual.net> |
On Thu, 4/17/2025 5:12 PM, Andy Burns wrote: > VanguardLH wrote: > >> 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/ > > Yes, that was the article I read to find how to turn it off. did you spot the true/false error? > >> 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. > > yes, I didn't/don't know how much CPU the mem compression is using behind the scenes, I suspect it hides that from taskmgr? > > I don't know what it doing, but given that memory may contain pointer to other memory, if you've compressed it, wrst case youmight have to intercept reads, unfrig the pointers before you pass the pages back to the unsuspecting app ... that could chew some CPU and cause some heat. > >> 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 > > > usually about 6G free out of 16GB physical. for some reason I had the pagefile set to "auto" and it had allocated 16GB, so I had 32GB virtual, I've nowchopped that down to 1GB pagefile. > >> 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? > > right now (with only FF, TB and HWmonitor, taskmgr as foreground apps) 7.4GB > > I have a probably 150-200 tabs open, but nowadays they unload in the background much better than they used to. > >> 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. > > I've got a dell R760 to tinker with at the moment, not huge amounts of memory (we had 256GB or 384GB models as VMware hosts several years ago) just 128GB but 2x24core xeons, 12Gbps SAS, couple of SSD to boot from and couple of SATA for local backups, 10Gb NICs. > >> >> 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. > > > yes, with compression off,this machine is less fan-happy, if I'm watching youtube,sure the fan is on, but if firefox is in th ebackground and I'm just reading/typing in TB, then the fan shuts off pretty easily, whereas before it was constant. > Process Explorer is the tool you want. It lists the Memory Compressor. And if the Memory Compressor is active, *something* is responsible for the symptoms. A single process can cause this to happen. Your job is to figure out the root cause. Memory Compressor is not bugged. Something is telling it to act, and it is processing its particular flavour of input events. But part of the problem, is the Task Manager is not a very honest accounting of machine activity, and the extra two digits of precision on Process Explorer may help you identify active artifice (poorly written software, like a Classic Outlook wrapped in a Webview2 wrapper and "spiking a CPU core"). 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