Interesting, probably the issues I am having are not due to virtual memory / paging file size but due to the VAS restrictions. I assume add-ons loaded externally do not contribute to the VAS unless they interact with FSX, is this correct?

 

 

Can you please explain what you meant here, I did not quite understand what you meant here.

 

 

Yep, an OOM is always VAS-related. Limited physical RAM can slow down your system (as HD space is traded for RAM), but it doesn't cause OOMs.

External addons don't occupy FSX VAS directly, but they may influence the FSX VAS needed: Imagine a weather addon like AS2012 which injects high-resolution-textured multiple cloud layers into your FSX - your FSX VAS usage will increase, even though the AS2012.exe is small and runs outside of the FSX.exe.

 

My total system RAM usage, when running FSX, including RAM usage by the OS and external addons, usually doesn't exceed 6 GB. So a 8 GB RAM should be enough, if FSX is your most demanding application.

Why does WIndows recommended such a large virtual memory in contrast to Samsung's advice?

 

Windows seems to base its calculation on the old formula - Paging file = 1.5 x physical RAM

 

This was true back when systems had 2GB of RAM or so. It won't do any harm with 8 or 16GB of RAM, but it's a waste of disk space, which is especially a problem if you're running a small SSD (24GB out of a 120GB SSD is a lot).

 

3GB is enough for "housekeeping" tasks that use the paging file.

I'm going to attempt once more to "define" just what the VAS table is in very simple terms:

 

1. loaded programs occupy physical memory

 

2. every loaded program's bits are mapped to that application's "virtual addresses" in the VAS table

 

3. when a program is swapped to virtual memory, Windows needs to read the VAS table in order to know where to put the bits back into the physical memory so it can resume execution

 

In short, VAS tables are nothing more nor less than memory addresses. They are not the actual data and/or program bits.

 

Thank you for the info, interesting read.

 

You're wasting your breath, Bill. It's like writing a Guide, and then watching everyone rip it to pieces.

Nope, I don't agree... Bill is not wasting his time, I am read the post and pondered about it.

Yep, an OOM is always VAS-related. Limited physical RAM can slow down your system (as HD space is traded for RAM), but it doesn't cause OOMs.

External addons don't occupy FSX VAS directly, but they may influence the FSX VAS needed: Imagine a weather addon like AS2012 which injects high-resolution-textured multiple cloud layers into your FSX - your FSX VAS usage will increase, even though the AS2012.exe is small and runs outside of the FSX.exe.

 

My total system RAM usage, when running FSX, including RAM usage by the OS and external addons, usually doesn't exceed 6 GB. So a 8 GB RAM should be enough, if FSX is your most demanding application.

 

Makes sense, got it! Thanks

Windows seems to base its calculation on the old formula - Paging file = 1.5 x physical RAM

 

This was true back when systems had 2GB of RAM or so. It won't do any harm with 8 or 16GB of RAM, but it's a waste of disk space, which is especially a problem if you're running a small SSD (24GB out of a 120GB SSD is a lot).

 

3GB is enough for "housekeeping" tasks that use the paging file.

 

Interesting! Since the OOM issues I am having are due to the VAS restrictions, I will play around with a smaller paging file and start with a small size because I also appreciate less disk use. *agrees*

I got a lot to try here guys^^^ really appreciate the help so far! You guys answer so quick too   B) Already tried out many things, I will post my results in due time too.

A 2-gig swap space works just fine too, Joe, and gives an extra gig back to the drive. 

You're wasting your breath, Bill. It's like writing a Guide, and then watching everyone rip it to pieces.

Perhaps so, but I don't mind tilting at windmills; who knows, perhaps a horse will learn to sing!

 

I thought about an even simpler and wholly non-technical example:

 

The "Virtual Address Space Tables" are like an alphabetically arranged index to a book; they are not the book's actual words.

With anything more than 8GB of RAM you do not need any pagefile at all.

 

In fact, if you do not do any games or graphic apps (eg photoshop, video-editing, etc.), you can do with no pagefile at all even if you have 1GB of RAM.

Don't touch any settings outside of FSX.

 

What are you doing when you get OOM's?

 

Biggest factors are

Complex payware/scenery

High video card settings (AA/AF)

4096 textures (clouds textures etc)

LOD above and beyond stock of 4.5

 

I recommend saving different cfg's for different situations.

 

Example in Orbx land I use LOD 4.5 when flying PMDG NGX . I may still get an OOM.

 

For default flying with payware I do LOD 5.5 and no AI tfc when online.

 

For default everything I use LOD 6.5 and almost max settings.

If we called VAS, KNACKERS for example it would be less confusing for people. All these folks getting it confused with RAM and SWAP FILE.

 

If the error said GONG! "You have just run out of knackers!!" It would be much easier to convince people what it actually is..

 

For the record, my OOM errors became less frequent when I went down to 2048 textures.

 

B)

Thank you Paul.

 

I am hearing quite a number of answers regarding what size the paging file should be now (from automatically letting Windows manage it to none at all) and wellI so I guess it depends on what applications I am using, but from what I read above the paging file is not needed for FSX unless the memory available is too low, which won't be the case with 16GB, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I general I was wondering how the paging file related to FSX, but it's just like any other program using the paging file, when the memory space is needed. I read that completely removing it causes issues with some applications, so yeah I think i will keep mine small like 2GB^ but not turn it off completely. 

 

Perhaps so, but I don't mind tilting at windmills; who knows, perhaps a horse will learn to sing!

 

I thought about an even simpler and wholly non-technical example:

 

The "Virtual Address Space Tables" are like an alphabetically arranged index to a book; they are not the book's actual words.

 

Thanks for making it simple - got it also the difference between virtual memory and VAS. And OOM errors due to VAS reaching the limits.

 

With anything more than 8GB of RAM you do not need any pagefile at all.

 

In fact, if you do not do any games or graphic apps (eg photoshop, video-editing, etc.), you can do with no pagefile at all even if you have 1GB of RAM.

 

hmm, yes probably you are right but little worried about turning it off completely, as I hear it can cause errors and you are not informed about these errors, applications are having. Windows also throws out a warning when you set your paging file to less than 800MB. Still wondering about wether I should try and turn it off completely.

 

Don't touch any settings outside of FSX.

What are you doing when you get OOM's?

Biggest factors are
Complex payware/scenery
High video card settings (AA/AF)
4096 textures (clouds textures etc)
LOD above and beyond stock of 4.5

I recommend saving different cfg's for different situations.

Example in Orbx land I use LOD 4.5 when flying PMDG NGX . I may still get an OOM.

For default flying with payware I do LOD 5.5 and no AI tfc when online.

For default everything I use LOD 6.5 and almost max settings.

 

It is hard to tell, somewhat random but usually during landing in complex payware scenery, like OrbX PNW. I like the freeware from Frankfurt  (V7) but I have been getting OOM when landing there, so it's a combination of the things you mentioned. Working on turning down some of the settings. I changed max_texture_load to 2048.

FWIW Orbx is basically insta OOM for me unless I turn down settings to medium (autogen etc) and I have to go LOD 4.5 if flying payware.

 

It's not that the fps are poor it's just that FSX VAS is highly saturated.

 

I recommend Process Explorer (just google it) to view VAS.

Something that seems to be little discussed is that Windows manages all the RAM.  FSX uses "memory-mapped" file I/O access.  Windows memory manager is able to use RAM that is not allocated to applications or the kernel for a "system cache" which can hold those memory-mapped files.  So by eliminating the swap file, you are forcing the memory manager to hold pages in RAM which otherwise might be available for the system cache.  I don't know how to measure the trade-off in performance, but there could be some ISTM.  Also IIUC all (swappable) pages in RAM are not necessarily written out to the page file.  They might just be dumped and then re-read from storage when needed.  So I would give strong consideration to using the Nick N 3072 page file advice.  For the same reason I'm not convinced that setting up a "RAM disk" makes sense.

 

scott s.

.

Something that seems to be little discussed is that Windows manages all the RAM.  FSX uses "memory-mapped" file I/O access.  Windows memory manager is able to use RAM that is not allocated to applications or the kernel for a "system cache" which can hold those memory-mapped files.  So by eliminating the swap file, you are forcing the memory manager to hold pages in RAM which otherwise might be available for the system cache.  I don't know how to measure the trade-off in performance, but there could be some ISTM.  Also IIUC all (swappable) pages in RAM are not necessarily written out to the page file.  They might just be dumped and then re-read from storage when needed.  So I would give strong consideration to using the Nick N 3072 page file advice.  For the same reason I'm not convinced that setting up a "RAM disk" makes sense.

 

scott s.

.

 

Interesting Scott, nice to read the different views, yeah I think getting rid of the page file might work fine but also a little risky, I think I will keep it around 2Gb but not get rid of it. What does ISTM and IIUC stand for? Thanks

Have anyone tested this settings or it's about theoretical knowledge again? We can discuss this until the world ends, but things may be different when applied. 

 

There are a lot of settings and FSX tweaks which sounds good, very logical. But they can make things worse, when applied. Our systems + OS + FSX are way to complex. Settings are not really straightforward, and everything needs to be tested.

 

Just one example, that 3072 limit in paging file, it makes great sense to me when i read Nick's arguments. But i'm getting OMM errors instantly with that. And i didn't get OOM for 2 years with default settings

What is your default setting B247NG and RAM size?

 

 

Sent via mobile

You can see in my profile, i have 8GB RAM. I was talking about paging file, that is at default settings. This recomendation for windows 7 / 64bit comes from some trusted(at least for me)sources, for example http://www.tweakhound.com/windows7/tweaking/7.html

 

If you asked about FSX settings, i have almost everything maxed out, except traffic. I used Word Not Allowed's guide, but lod_radius is at default 4.5. And i fly complex airliners(PMDG, Maddog, Concorde X)over complex sceneries(ORBX, FSDT, Aerosoft and many more) + AS2012, REX etc...