topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Thursday March 28, 2024, 7:47 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Is this the holy grail to solving windows-out-of-resources bugs?  (Read 29208 times)

wreckedcarzz

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,626
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is this the holy grail to solving windows-out-of-resources bugs?
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2007, 09:30 PM »
I have used 95, 98, 98SE, 2k, ME, XP (all versions), Vista Home Basic and Home Premium, and have yet to run into this problem. Heck, even running games that require minimum system requirements above that of a 7 year old computer hasn't triggered this. Maybe I am just lucky :)

justice

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,898
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
This is fixed in windows 2008 where the key Windows has the value 12288:
%SystemRoot%\system32\csrss.exe ObjectDirectory=\Windows SharedSection=1024,12288,512 Windows=On SubSystemType=Windows ServerDll=basesrv,1 ServerDll=winsrv:UserServerDllInitialization,3 ServerDll=winsrv:ConServerDllInitialization,2 ProfileControl=Off MaxRequestThreads=16

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,896
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
nice find justice, that's quite telling.

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
So... er, has any brave soul tried setting this value (12288) in XP?

mouser

  • First Author
  • Administrator
  • Joined in 2005
  • *****
  • Posts: 40,896
    • View Profile
    • Mouser's Software Zone on DonationCoder.com
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
12288 is not brave.

Someone should try 9999999.

But please don't try it on a pc with real data on it :)

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Right then, Darwin timidly steps into the fray and starts modding his Registry. 9999998 has a nice ring to it!

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,566
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
My default already was Windows SharedSection=1024,4096,512
- did I perhaps get this from some "xp enhancer"-program?  :-\


12288 sounds more than brave to me!  :tellme:

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 9,747
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
12288 sounds more than brave to me!  :tellme:

I admit my ignorance in exactly what this is used for, but I don't understand why that sounds brave. That's just 12MB. I have ~2,000MB RAM on this machine. Most people these days have at least 512MB if not 1GB of RAM.

On my system, Firefox often takes up around 150MB by itself. So that's why I think 12MB is nothing.

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I made the change and - no surprises here - after 10 hours of continuous use, no problems. I've spent most of that time with mutiple Office 2007 apps and docs open, Endnote X, a webbrowser and so on open with not so much as a hiccough. Couldn't in honesty claim that it would have been a problem before, though.

Curt

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 7,566
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
You made the change, Darwin, but did you choose 12288 or 9999998 ?  :tellme:

TucknDar

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,133
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I admit my ignorance in exactly what this is used for, but I don't understand why that sounds brave. That's just 12MB. I have ~2,000MB RAM on this machine. Most people these days have at least 512MB if not 1GB of RAM.

On my system, Firefox often takes up around 150MB by itself. So that's why I think 12MB is nothing.
I'm with you there, Deozaan. Could someone please explain why/if 12288 is so brave in terms that even I can understand :-[

I changed my setting to 4096 which reduced this problem to "almost zero", but I've seen the dreaded message once or twice since, although nothing like before. Any point in setting 12288?

Darwin

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,984
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I made the change to 12288, Curt  :)

My original use of the term brave was really in the context of the expression "brave soul" - I didn't mean much by it!

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 9,747
    • View Profile
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
I never ran into the problem before that I can remember on this particular machine, but just to see if it improved performance I changed it to 8096 or whatever amount he said was working fine for him in the article.

I haven't noticed any difference though.

Stoic Joker

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 6,646
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
I ran into this tweak awhile back and it fixed the (slightly different than stated here) issue I was having at the time. I frequently open dozens of browser windows when branching a research project each of which can have a dozen or so tabs open ... This habbit was causing major stability issues. There are two other related tweakable reg keys mentioned in the article that have made my box dead rock stable regardless of what I've asked it to do.

The original artical is no longer posted, but fortunately I'd ripped a copy to .pdf so I can still share it. This was originally written by Robert McLaws and posted on his Windows-Now.com blog.

http://www.stoicjoke...imits-in-Windows.pdf


Thanks to mouser for reminding me of this tweak as it works wonders for stabilizing Vista.