Search Results

Search found 5628 results on 226 pages for 'ram kumar'.

Page 12/226 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • Windows Vista Home memory usage problem [closed]

    - by lordg
    Hi, I have a Windows Vista Home laptop from a client that is running on 1GB ram. The laptop is used for super basic things, word, internet, outlook, etc. What makes zero sense is that the RAM is being completely consumed, causing the PC to hang sometimes when it can't take it anymore. However, in task manager, the processes appear to only be consuming maybe 100MB (Private Working Set). The client literally has a simple setup, and is running kaspersky, though that does not seem to be indicating it is the cause of the excessive memory usage. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve the memory issue or how to track down what is actually happening and fix it? G

    Read the article

  • Why Are Minimized Programs Often Slow to Open Again?

    - by Jason Fitzpatrick
    It seems particularly counterintuitive: you minimize an application because you plan on returning to it later and wish to skip shutting the application down and restarting it later, but sometimes maximizing it takes even longer than launching it fresh. What gives? Today’s Question & Answer session comes to us courtesy of SuperUser—a subdivision of Stack Exchange, a community-driven grouping of Q&A web sites. The Question SuperUser reader Bart wants to know why he’s not saving any time with application minimization: I’m working in Photoshop CS6 and multiple browsers a lot. I’m not using them all at once, so sometimes some applications are minimized to taskbar for hours or days. The problem is, when I try to maximize them from the taskbar – it sometimes takes longer than starting them! Especially Photoshop feels really weird for many seconds after finally showing up, it’s slow, unresponsive and even sometimes totally freezes for minute or two. It’s not a hardware problem as it’s been like that since always on all on my PCs. Would I also notice it after upgrading my HDD to SDD and adding RAM (my main PC holds 4 GB currently)? Could guys with powerful pcs / macs tell me – does it also happen to you? I guess OSes somehow “focus” on active software and move all the resources away from the ones that run, but are not used. Is it possible to somehow set RAM / CPU / HDD priorities or something, for let’s say, Photoshop, so it won’t slow down after long period of inactivity? So what is the deal? Why does he find himself waiting to maximize a minimized app? The Answer SuperUser contributor Allquixotic explains why: Summary The immediate problem is that the programs that you have minimized are being paged out to the “page file” on your hard disk. This symptom can be improved by installing a Solid State Disk (SSD), adding more RAM to your system, reducing the number of programs you have open, or upgrading to a newer system architecture (for instance, Ivy Bridge or Haswell). Out of these options, adding more RAM is generally the most effective solution. Explanation The default behavior of Windows is to give active applications priority over inactive applications for having a spot in RAM. When there’s significant memory pressure (meaning the system doesn’t have a lot of free RAM if it were to let every program have all the RAM it wants), it starts putting minimized programs into the page file, which means it writes out their contents from RAM to disk, and then makes that area of RAM free. That free RAM helps programs you’re actively using — say, your web browser — run faster, because if they need to claim a new segment of RAM (like when you open a new tab), they can do so. This “free” RAM is also used as page cache, which means that when active programs attempt to read data on your hard disk, that data might be cached in RAM, which prevents your hard disk from being accessed to get that data. By using the majority of your RAM for page cache, and swapping out unused programs to disk, Windows is trying to improve responsiveness of the program(s) you are actively using, by making RAM available to them, and caching the files they access in RAM instead of the hard disk. The downside of this behavior is that minimized programs can take a while to have their contents copied from the page file, on disk, back into RAM. The time increases the larger the program’s footprint in memory. This is why you experience that delay when maximizing Photoshop. RAM is many times faster than a hard disk (depending on the specific hardware, it can be up to several orders of magnitude). An SSD is considerably faster than a hard disk, but it is still slower than RAM by orders of magnitude. Having your page file on an SSD will help, but it will also wear out the SSD more quickly than usual if your page file is heavily utilized due to RAM pressure. Remedies Here is an explanation of the available remedies, and their general effectiveness: Installing more RAM: This is the recommended path. If your system does not support more RAM than you already have installed, you will need to upgrade more of your system: possibly your motherboard, CPU, chassis, power supply, etc. depending on how old it is. If it’s a laptop, chances are you’ll have to buy an entire new laptop that supports more installed RAM. When you install more RAM, you reduce memory pressure, which reduces use of the page file, which is a good thing all around. You also make available more RAM for page cache, which will make all programs that access the hard disk run faster. As of Q4 2013, my personal recommendation is that you have at least 8 GB of RAM for a desktop or laptop whose purpose is anything more complex than web browsing and email. That means photo editing, video editing/viewing, playing computer games, audio editing or recording, programming / development, etc. all should have at least 8 GB of RAM, if not more. Run fewer programs at a time: This will only work if the programs you are running do not use a lot of memory on their own. Unfortunately, Adobe Creative Suite products such as Photoshop CS6 are known for using an enormous amount of memory. This also limits your multitasking ability. It’s a temporary, free remedy, but it can be an inconvenience to close down your web browser or Word every time you start Photoshop, for instance. This also wouldn’t stop Photoshop from being swapped when minimizing it, so it really isn’t a very effective solution. It only helps in some specific situations. Install an SSD: If your page file is on an SSD, the SSD’s improved speed compared to a hard disk will result in generally improved performance when the page file has to be read from or written to. Be aware that SSDs are not designed to withstand a very frequent and constant random stream of writes; they can only be written over a limited number of times before they start to break down. Heavy use of a page file is not a particularly good workload for an SSD. You should install an SSD in combination with a large amount of RAM if you want maximum performance while preserving the longevity of the SSD. Use a newer system architecture: Depending on the age of your system, you may be using an out of date system architecture. The “system architecture” is generally defined as the “generation” (think generations like children, parents, grandparents, etc.) of the motherboard and CPU. Newer generations generally support faster I/O (input/output), better memory bandwidth, lower latency, and less contention over shared resources, instead providing dedicated links between components. For example, starting with the “Nehalem” generation (around 2009), the Front-Side Bus (FSB) was eliminated, which removed a common bottleneck, because almost all system components had to share the same FSB for transmitting data. This was replaced with a “point to point” architecture, meaning that each component gets its own dedicated “lane” to the CPU, which continues to be improved every few years with new generations. You will generally see a more significant improvement in overall system performance depending on the “gap” between your computer’s architecture and the latest one available. For example, a Pentium 4 architecture from 2004 is going to see a much more significant improvement upgrading to “Haswell” (the latest as of Q4 2013) than a “Sandy Bridge” architecture from ~2010. Links Related questions: How to reduce disk thrashing (paging)? Windows Swap (Page File): Enable or Disable? Also, just in case you’re considering it, you really shouldn’t disable the page file, as this will only make matters worse; see here. And, in case you needed extra convincing to leave the Windows Page File alone, see here and here. Have something to add to the explanation? Sound off in the the comments. Want to read more answers from other tech-savvy Stack Exchange users? Check out the full discussion thread here.     

    Read the article

  • How to make a huge ram drive?

    - by Brandon Moore
    At my old job when a report was needed I could sit down with someone and pull up results and get immediate feedback, and then refine my queries and ultimately have the data we needed, in the format we needed within 30-90 minutes. I just started working for a new company with a database containing millions of records and I spent my whole 8 hours making a report that I feel I could have made in less than 2 hours if it were not for the massive amount of data the queries are working with, and the fact that I couldn't ask the person needing the data to sit down with me and give me feedback as I pulled up results as I am used to. So I am trying to think of how we can make the server faster... much faster, so that I can have the same level of productivity I'm used to. One thought that just came to mind is that memory is so cheap these days, and by my calculations I could buy 10 8gig ram sticks for 1000 bucks. What I have never heard of though is a device that would let me combine these into a huge ram drive. So I'd like to know if any such device exists, and if not what is the largest ram drive I could realistically make and how would I go about doing so? EDIT: To you guys who are saying the database shema needs to be analyzed... you can't make a query such as "Select f1, f2, f3, etc from SomeTable" run any faster by normalizing or indexing the table. What I'm talking about IS ABSOLUTELY a need for improved performance at the hardware level. I am used to having results come back to me in a few seconds, not a few minutes or much less a half an hour. Maybe that's what you guys are used to who have 100 billion record tables and you feel like that's fast, but I'm looking for results back from tables with about 10 million records to come back to me withing less than half a minute TOPS.

    Read the article

  • Windows XP seemingly out of resources but plenty of free RAM and swap available

    - by Artem Russakovskii
    This one has been bothering me for years and so far I couldn't find an adequate solution. The problem occurs on pretty much every XP install I've done. After opening a variety of programs or the system running existing programs for a while, Windows seemingly runs out of resources, without telling me. There's ALWAYS free RAM. For example, it just happened to me and I had over a gig of free RAM. There are no viruses, spyware, or other nonsense - it is a Windows resource problem, but the question is which resource is it running out of, how does one pinpoint it, and how does one prevent it? Sometimes, this happens after running specific programs - for example, today it happened when I started Photoshop CS4 and Flash CS4 at the same time. I also noticed that restarting The Bat (email client by Ritlabs) seems to get rid of this problem for a while but again, this happens on machines that don't even have The Bat installed. So what does exactly happen? The symptoms are: pressing alt-tab doesn't bring up the list anymore - it just jumps to the next window instantly, very similar to the way Alt-Esc works, however in this case, it's due to not having enough resources to bring up the alt-tab menu random programs would randomly crash, citing random errors, out of memory errors, system resources, inabilities to do system calls, etc. random programs would start missing random parts - for example, Firefox top menus might disappear, pull up partial selections, or not pull up anymore altogether. IE might lose a few of its toolbars. Some programs might fail to redraw or would just plain go gray where the UI used to be. Windows itself never complains about running out of RAM, virtual memory, or anything at all, yet it's running out of something. The only clue I was able to find and apply the fix today was this Desktop Heap Limitation. I haven't confirmed the fix working as not enough time passed. In the meantime, what are everyone's thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Apache Process question about RAM usage

    - by Andrew Fashion
    So everytime I load a new page, I notice a new HTTPD process opens, every time I click a page, and each process says it's using anywhere from 2-4.5% of memory. Does that mean every single process is running at that time using 2-4% of RAM? It's a brand new server and I'm the only one on the server at the moment. Or does it mean all the other processes are dying, and only the new one is active. Because 4% of my 2048MB of RAM is already 82MB for just one process!?!? Let me know, because I am trying to determine what I need to beef my server up in order to handle high loads of traffic. I'm expect to get 20,000 uniques per day on launch. I am currently running a Dual Quad Xeon server, with only 2GB of ram, I will upgrade to 8GB or more shortly. Let me know what you suggest! thank you [root@D18634 log]# top | grep 'httpd' 11315 apache 15 0 362m 82m 24m R 12.3 4.1 0:03.00 httpd 11310 apache 16 0 322m 41m 21m S 5.7 2.1 0:02.98 httpd 11315 apache 15 0 362m 83m 25m S 24.3 4.1 0:03.73 httpd 11319 apache 16 0 324m 42m 20m R 1.0 2.1 0:01.85 httpd 11319 apache 16 0 362m 82m 23m R 78.5 4.1 0:04.21 httpd 11321 apache 16 0 323m 44m 23m S 35.3 2.2 0:04.13 httpd 11319 apache 15 0 361m 82m 23m S 8.3 4.1 0:04.46 httpd 11321 apache 15 0 323m 44m 23m S 35.9 2.2 0:05.21 httpd 11313 apache 15 0 324m 41m 19m S 48.6 2.1 0:03.23 httpd 11322 apache 16 0 354m 72m 20m R 11.0 3.6 0:05.11 httpd 11322 apache 16 0 354m 72m 20m S 23.9 3.6 0:05.83 httpd 11314 apache 16 0 355m 75m 22m R 18.3 3.7 0:04.64 httpd

    Read the article

  • How to calculate RAM value on performance per dollar spent

    - by Stucko
    Hi, I'm trying to make decisions on buying a new PC. I have most specifications (processor/graphic card/hard disk) pin-downed except for RAM. I am wondering what is the best RAM configuration for the amount of money I'm spending. As the question of best is subjective, I'd like to know how would I calculate the value of RAM sticks sold. 1.(sample)The value of amount of memory: 1) CORSAIR PC1333 D3 2GB = costs $80 2) CORSAIR PC1333 D3 4GB = costs $190 would it be better to buy 2 of item 1) instead of 1 of item 2) ?? Although I would normally choose to have 1 of 2) as the difference is only (190-(80*2)) = 30 as I would save 1 DIMM slot, What I need is the value per amount: 1) 80/ 2 = $40 per 1GB 2) 190/ 4 = $47.5 per 1GB 2. The value of frequency: 1) CORSAIR PC1333 4GB = costs 190 2) CORSAIR PC1600C7 4GB = costs 325 Im not even sure of the denominator ... $ per 1 ghz speed? 3. The value of latency: 1) CORSAIR CMP1600C8 8-8-8-24 2GBx3 (triple channel) = costs 589 2) CORSAIR CMP1600C7D 7-7-7-20 2GBx3 (triple channel) = costs 880 Im not even sure of the denominator ... $ per 1 ghz speed? Just for your information i'd like to get the best out of the money im going to spend to put on a 6 DIMM slot i7core motherboard.

    Read the article

  • Ram question in VMware Server 2

    - by ToreTrygg
    Hi, I understand from the VMware Server 2 documentation that VMware Server 2 is capable of running a 64-bit guest OS underneath a 32-bit host OS, as long as the hardware running the box is 64-bit capable. Here's my situation. We currently have an underutilized XEON X3220 Quad Core 64bit Server, running Server 2003, 32-bit and 2gb of RAM (the motherboard is capable of 8gb ram). The server is currently used mainly for file and print services. It is also running Active Directory, Novell eDirectory and Groupwise 6.5. We are planning a micration to Microsoft Exchange, so the Novell eDirectory and Groupwise services will eventually be purged from this box, leaving only Active Directory, File and Print services. Being that this server is underutilized we are hoping to save hardware costs and virtualize our new Exchange investment. My question is this. Will VMware allow access to the "invisible" extra memory that Windows 32-bit won't see. Meaning, if we increase the full amount of system ram to 8gb (yes, I know the 32-bit host OS will only see a maximum of 4gb), will I be able to assign maybe 5gb to the new Server 2008 64-bit OS running Exchange and leave 3gb for the Guest OS (or maybe even a 6, 2 split). The second part of that would be, would it be better to just convert the main OS currently running to an image, convert the machine itself to ESXi and run both OSes as images under ESXi. Downtime for this box is critical, so my preference is most definitly with the first option because it presents very minimal downtime. Doing the second would make downtime quite a few hours to image the machine and then convert the image to a VMware Image.

    Read the article

  • Only half of RAM is recognized by BIOS

    - by Rick Crawford
    I got a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3 mainboard. Some time ago I noticed that Windows only showed 2GB instead of 4GB. I don't know exactly what caused it anyway. I tried putting in each of the 4 x 1GB RAM modules one by one, and tried every slot one by one, until every stick and slot worked. However, then I tried adding one more at a time, and it kept showing 1GB, until I put in all 4, where it only showed 2 GB instead of 4 (in BIOS and windows 7 64bit). I tried replacing the BIOS battery since I've read that low battery could cause it. It didn't help though. I also bought 4GB new RAM (yes, it's supported, I checked it), and it's still the same, it only shows 2GB (or 3GB, when I put in 4 of the new and 2 of the old). I also did the latest BIOS update, and used default BIOS settings, but nothing of that helped. When my PC boots it shows "RAM modules used 2 and 3", when 4 sticks are in - or "0 and 1", when only 2 are in.

    Read the article

  • explanation of RAM specs, and what do I need for a Gaming rig

    - by ewok
    I am looking into upgrading my custom built PC's RAM. I use the machine mostly for gaming, but I don't really know a ton about RAM, so I wanted to ask a few questions. The research I've done tells me there is a negligible increase in speed for anything above 1600 MHz. is this true or is it worth the extra money to go higher? Other than drawing more power from the PSU, is there any real difference in performance with different voltages (1.5V vs 1.65V)? most of the kits I've found in the 2x4 1600 range have a CAS latency of 9 and timing of 9-9-9-24. For a significant increase in price (usually about 1.5x), I can get either 8 or 7 and lower timing. Is it worth the cost? What I am looking for here is someone to give a good explanation of what the different specs represent, and how that relates to the performance of the machine. Specifically, I'm looking for what specs I need to focus on for a good gaming rig. I am NOT looking for a "buy this, it's the best RAM" without an explanation of why. The information will be much more valuable as it will allow me to make my own informed decision. As they say, give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life.

    Read the article

  • Howto detect fake RAM

    - by Michael
    I just bought a virtual server which should have 2GB of RAM. Now i got a server with 4gb which looks very strange to me. I think it is just a virtual RAM. dmidecode only ouputs /dev/mem: Operation not permitted How can i check if it's a real RAM or just a virtual one? free -m outputs: total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 4093 364 3728 0 0 346 -/+ buffers/cache: 18 4074 Swap: 0 0 0 Output from cat /proc/user_beancounters Version: 2.5 uid resource held maxheld barrier limit failcnt 137: kmemsize 8922287 10194944 2145910784 2145910784 0 lockedpages 0 0 523904 523904 0 privvmpages 13387 59112 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 shmpages 769 785 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numproc 22 54 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 physpages 93377 106010 0 1047808 0 vmguarpages 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 oomguarpages 2471 2473 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numtcpsock 5 21 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numflock 4 13 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numpty 1 1 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numsiginfo 0 39 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 tcpsndbuf 102592 381632 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 tcprcvbuf 81920 4820184 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 othersockbuf 4624 61632 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dgramrcvbuf 0 9248 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numothersock 39 56 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dcachesize 4178917 4232732 1072955392 1072955392 0 numfile 378 535 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 dummy 0 0 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0 numiptent 24 24 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775807 0

    Read the article

  • Does upgrading RAM causes increase in Graphic card's share?

    - by A.S.
    I have asked this question on Ask Ubuntu, and I was suggested to Upgrade RAM from most voted answers. But I got a point about my graphics card. Since, I can upgrade RAM and not graphics card, Does upgrading RAM also cause graphics memory to increase. To clear the point: My specs are given below: Laptop : Lenovo 3000 Y410. (bought in 2008 October) RAM: 1 GB (DDR2) External Graphics (Dedicated): N/A Internal Graphics (Shared): 256 MB Graphics Chipset: Intel GMA X3100 My Question is: If I increase my RAM to 3 GB, will it increase graphics cards share of the Memory. In other word, If graphics card shares 256 MB in 1GB RAM, will it share more, when I upgrade the RAM into 2GB or more ? Authentic resource link will be much appreciated I have recently known that, My chipset GMA X3100 can address 384 MB of RAM. So the question.

    Read the article

  • Will increasing RAM improve Lightroom 3 large tiff loading times

    - by andy
    Set up: mid 2009 17" unibody MacBook Pro 4GB RAM 2.66 Core 2 Duo Snow Leopard 10.6.6 Lightroom 3 When working with 12 MegaPixel RAW files from a Nikon D700, no problem. Lightroom is fine. Recently I've been scanning film and they result in large tiff files, about 130mb each. The tiff files themselves are good, and I'm happy with my scanning workflow. Working with these files in Lightroom is perfectly fine, except for one step. When I choose one of these photos in the Develop module, Lightroom displays the "Loading" on the image for about a minute or two, which is quite long. Once the image is loaded, then everything is fine again, and applying effects is instant. So my only issue is reducing that "loading" time in the develop module (the library module is fine too). Will increasing my RAM to 8GB help? I'm worried about spending the money and it not making any difference. thanks andy

    Read the article

  • Sustaining Dual Channel among many RAM modules

    - by Odys
    I'd like to know what are the factors that need to be set in order to sustain the Dual Channel mode. In a mobo with 4 DDR3 slots: Do I have to put pair of chips? Eg: If I put 3 identical chips only, will I have Dual channel or not? If I put 4 Ram chips that aren't from of same ventor/model, will I have the same latency among them (the highest of all)? Also, will I sustain Dual Channel mode? If one Ram has max frequency of 1033 and the other 3 chips are of 1300, will I have 1033Mhz for all chips and Dual Channel mode on? What if I put 2x4Gb and 2x8Gb chips (latency, Dual Channel)? Can I put 4Gb chips in slots 1 and 3 and 8Gb in slots 2 and 4 and still have dual channel mode enabled? (Some of the questions might sound silly but their answers aren't that clear to me) (Also, assume that there aren't any bottlenecks because of other parts on the system)

    Read the article

  • Win 7 accessing large files uses 100% RAM

    - by user181276
    Running Win 7 64-bit SP1 with 8 GB RAM. I first noticed this problem when using the GUI to copy some large (5+ GB) files from one disk to another. What happens is the physical memory in use rises quite quickly to 100% and the system comes to a crawl. If I just start to access the file in a media player (it is a movie) the memory usage climbs up slowly but eventually reaches 100%. When copying the same files via XCOPY I do not have this problem. Using RAMMAP I see most of the memory usage is under "Mapped File" and is allocated under the "Active" column. If I select "Empty System Working Set" the RAM usage drops back down but then starts to climb back up. Any ideas on what I can check/test to eliminate this issue?

    Read the article

  • Windows Photo Viewer needs more ram?

    - by Aren B
    Ok, so i went to open a picture with the Windows Photo Viewer (Default) application and it told me this: Windows Photo Viewer can't display this picture because there might not be enough memory available on your computer. Close some programs that you aren't using or free some hard disk space (if it's almost full), and then try again. So looking at my 98% ram usage (thankyou VisualStudio x8 + SQL Server) I rebooted my computer. Now this is my load: And this is my hard-disk loadout: So now I go to load up that image again. SAME MESSAGE, what the heck? So apparantly 6gb isn't enough ram to open a 29k image that loads perfectly fine in MSPaint, Paint.NET, Photoshop It's a .png and it's not corrupt. So my question is: what gives?

    Read the article

  • How to change the amount of RAM displayed in System Properties

    - by Nicu Zecheru
    I have this product that requires at least 1 GB Physical Memory in order to be installed. On my XP Pro machine I have 1 GB of RAM but in System Properties only 0.99 GB of RAM is displayed. The problem is that the product installer checks the memory displayed in System Properties (just a guess, not sure) and cannot continue the setup because it sees only 0.99 GB. Is there any way to change the displayed memory in the System Properties? Or how can I trick the installer to skip the memory check? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • USB Virtual RAM is not working properly

    - by Haseeb Anwar
    This images are help u in solving my question.1I have installed Windows 7 64 bit. I have made a virtual USB RAM but it is not working properly. First I go to the USB PropertiesReady Boost. Use this device as a virtual RAM and then click Apply then Ok. then I go to My Computer PropertiesAdvance system settingsAdvance(tab)SettingsAdvanceChange. When i click on change button the USB is not here. What can I do. Please answer my question.

    Read the article

  • HP ML150 G6 upgrading RAM/CPU beyond specs?

    - by Morten Green Hermansen
    I am being told that some limits on some HP servers can be crossed. Do any of you have any experience with that? A ML150/G6 is limited to 48GB RAM but I have been talking to a German company that guaranties me that this server will be able to be upgraded to 384GB RAM (using 32GB memory modules and 2 CPUs) http://www.compuram.de/en/memory,HP+%28-Compaq%29,Server,Proliant,ML150+G6.htm Can this really be true? The server that I have is using E5504 CPUs but will I be able to upgrade to any CPU that is using a LGA1366 socket? All from a low wattage L5640 all the way to the 6 core, high wattage versions like an X5650? (If cooling and power is adequate ofcause). Is there any limitation with powerregulators and chipset (Intel 5500). I am looking forward to any reply. Thanks in advance and best regards, - Morten Green Hermansen, Fanitas

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to amavis for RAM-bound server

    - by rsuarez
    I'm running a small VPS server that works as web and mail server. It has only 256MB of RAM, and it's sucking 100MB of swap constantly. I've found that one of the culprits is amavis, taking about 30MB of resident memory, and would like to ditch it and use some alternative. I don't have much mail daily, so it being a bit slower wouldn't be a problem. I'd like to avoid Spamassassin altogether, if possible, because it's quite big even if used in offline mode. I'm already using RBLs and a few small blacklists, and used greylisting for a while but abandoned it because it gave me a few problems (don't remember which; I think it was related to not configuring properly white lists for several big ISPs). So, is there some alternative to amavis that I could use without much RAM (and if possible, CPU) usage? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Does disabling BIOS shadowing increase free RAM space?

    - by user32569
    Hi, I know in these days this is very stupid question, but for study purposes. I read that when PC starts, CPU is set to read adress just under the 4GB. There should BIOS be mapped to by memory controller. My question is, in old days, had disabling BIOS shadowing actually freed some RAM for you? I mean, even when BIOS was not shadowed to RAM directly, still adresses for BIOS MMIO access were wasted. And when you cant adress it, its like there is no extra space gained.

    Read the article

  • How to diagnose RAM?

    - by x-man
    I have a java process that is aborted after a while with SIGSEGV. It started to happen after I upgraded the server with more RAM. Having tested on different JVMs I suspect it might be a hardware problem. But no problem was detected by memtest86. So, what else can I do to detect the source of the problem is? Should I take the RAM modules one by one to detect the faulty module? The server is running on 64bit OpenSuse11.3. The memory is not an ECC one it seems. I have a kit of this (3*4GB * 2 = 24GB): http://www.kingston.com/datasheets/KHX1600C9S3K2_8GX.pdf

    Read the article

  • Real RAM latency

    - by user32569
    Hi, very quick question. When I look for RAM timing, I got 2 different explanations on what is CAS latency. First states, its the time after command to read has been issued from CPU and data are send to data bus. Second says its time betwen column in memory layout has been activated. So, where is the truth? I mean, when I want to know total RAM latenci, in case 1, ot would be just CAS times one clock time. In second case, it would be CAS+other things like RAstoCAS and so times one clock time. Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >