Ram being occupied without use is a waste also.
Which is the point of all this about CleanMem, I believe.
-cmpm
A lot of people don't understand what goes into Windows (and other modern OS) memory management, though - all they see is a "free memory" figure, which they then obsess over. To be fair, it
is a rather advanced subject, and the standard Windows task manager doesn't help the situation (calling commit-charge "PF usage" on XP, leading people to think they always have a lot of stuff paged out to disk, for instance).
Thing is, blindly trimming working sets just isn't a good idea. It doesn't
really free up memory - it can discard 'clean' memory pages (basically limited to executable code from .exe and .dll files, which will have to be re-read from disk next time it's needed), and it can pageout 'dirty' memory pages to the pagefile (meaning costly write operation, and re-read from pagefile when needed again). When you trim a process, you will often see it's working set go low, only to shoot back up again after a few seconds.
So it doesn't look like you are in a position to talk of 'bull' -- since Shane is so far the only one who specifically talks about comparing the effect of the two functions on the page file. It is always possible for a programmer to err, yet you acknowledge the functions are not operationally identical, a key point. So if Shane erred it would have to be demonstrated and would likely have been simply his own technical difficulty (e.g. "incorrect testing") nothing deceptive or shamistic. And so far we are not in any position to say he erred.-Steven Avery
I'm not saying Shane is deceptive or shamistic, and perhaps bull was too harsh a word to use. I still do find it unlikely that the two calls should have a different effect, though, since they both call the same low-level API. I acknowledge there's a risk I could be wrong, but I doubt it
Possible advantages -- unused RAM is not wasted -- since it is *immediately* available for usage. Where XP seems to trip up is that at the moment that you hit enter .. XP says .. oops, I need some RAM pronto .. do this, do that, do the other .. and your keystrokes are waiting. You go out for morning herb tea or Teccino or coffee. Perhaps with this background work the new action springs into play immediately, or quicker. More a timing and prep-chef type of thing.-Steven Avery
The only time you will see noticable waiting time from a memory request is in the case where stuff has to be written out to the paging file. Yes, when memory is freed from one process it has to be zeroed out before being handed over to another process (security reasons), but I'd like to see a computer capable of running NT where you're able to measure the effect of this.
As for thread priorities, NT handles them quite well. The reason there's benefit from using things like process lasso/tamer (and there is, especially for single-core CPUs without hyperthreading) is simply that a lot of application developers don't bother setting their thread priorities. It's not like it's hard to set the priority of a long-running computation thread to "below normal", yet there's a lot of developers that don't bother.
Recent Posts
with storing a password list online, no matter who with? I don't even allow my e-mail client or browser to remember them.