Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

advices for a new configuration, please


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 frankkkko

frankkkko

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 09 January 2013 - 03:53 PM

hello,
what do you think about this setup (i will build it for rendering 3ds max animations - mental ray, for general graphic design, video editing, some games etc):
-------------
CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K
MB: Asus P9X79
DDR3 64GB (8 x 8GB) 1866MHz CL9 (Corsair)
video 2 x GeForce GTX 660 2048MB (SLI)
SSD Corsair Force GT 180GB 25nm SATA3
PSU Seasonic SS-760XP2 (760W, platinum)
water cooling Corsair Hydro H70; case: Corsair Vengeance C70 etc
----------
i need to make sure the configuration is balanced (i don't want to have some unnecessarily powerful components, or one component which is too weak and creates bottlenecks), and to avoid incompatibilities.
i am an enthusiast, not a pro...
p.s. i will use the old HDD i have for storage (1TB WD Caviar); i also should mention that i'm thinking about using half of that RAM as a ram drive, is it a good idea, or the SSD is fast enough for the kind of data this machine will manage?
thanks!

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 diggi

diggi

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:06 AM

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:32 PM

I'd say it looks good but you need to increase the size of your ssd to at least 256gb because your page file will be at least the same size of your RAM so 180- 64gb =... you do the math.When using theRamdrivepage fil A Ram drive is an excelent use of extra ram that you are not using, try Qsoft its the fastest that I know of or DataRam's Ramdisk, its the easiest to use in my experience

#3 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,410 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:11:06 AM

Posted 10 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

I'd say it looks good but you need to increase the size of your ssd to at least 256gb because your page file will be at least the same size of your RAM so 180- 64gb =... you do the math.



Why is that a consideration? That would be true only if you allow the Windows formula for managing the pagefile to kick in, which is not necessarily adviseable in this era of grandiose amounts of RAM and little need for a pagefile which augments RAM by using hard drive space. Times have changed and the premise for a large pagefile...is no more for many users.

I had XP/Win 7 on a 60GB Corsair SSD...pagefile was not a consideration, nor should it be when users have ample RAM.

FWIW: My current pagefile for XP is 1GB (custom size), with 8GB of RAM (4 for XP) installed.

Louis

#4 diggi

diggi

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:06 AM

Posted 10 January 2013 - 07:48 PM

I read an article on the webs by a guy who works for Msoft a top engineer or so who Msoft snatched up and he essentially said let windows handle page file size

#5 frankkkko

frankkkko
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 2 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:06 PM

Posted 11 January 2013 - 05:11 AM

thanks for the tips :)
i was thinking to use the memory as follows: 32GB as RAM-drive, and 32GB as RAM... and set the page file to 16GB max on the ssd. i know there are different opinions about the page file subject (custom or windows-managed), so i guess i will just experiment and see what solution works best :)
anyway, the 256GB ssd could be a good idea, especially if they will be cheaper in 2-3 months when i plan to build the machine :)

#6 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,410 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:11:06 AM

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:12 AM

:thumbup2: .

Louis

#7 diggi

diggi

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:10:06 AM

Posted 11 January 2013 - 04:33 PM

How Big Should I Make the Paging File? Source

Perhaps one of the most commonly asked questions related to virtual memory is, how big should I make the paging file? There’s no end of ridiculous advice out on the web and in the newsstand magazines that cover Windows, and even Microsoft has published misleading recommendations. Almost all the suggestions are based on multiplying RAM size by some factor, with common values being 1.2, 1.5 and 2. Now that you understand the role that the paging file plays in defining a system’s commit limit and how processes contribute to the commit charge, you’re well positioned to see how useless such formulas truly are.

Since the commit limit sets an upper bound on how much private and pagefile-backed virtual memory can be allocated concurrently by running processes, the only way to reasonably size the paging file is to know the maximum total commit charge for the programs you like to have running at the same time. If the commit limit is smaller than that number, your programs won’t be able to allocate the virtual memory they want and will fail to run properly.

So how do you know how much commit charge your workloads require? You might have noticed in the screenshots that Windows tracks that number and Process Explorer shows it: Peak Commit Charge. To optimally size your paging file you should start all the applications you run at the same time, load typical data sets, and then note the commit charge peak (or look at this value after a period of time where you know maximum load was attained). Set the paging file minimum to be that value minus the amount of RAM in your system (if the value is negative, pick a minimum size to permit the kind of crash dump you are configured for). If you want to have some breathing room for potentially large commit demands, set the maximum to double that number.

Some feel having no paging file results in better performance, but in general, having a paging file means Windows can write pages on the modified list (which represent pages that aren’t being accessed actively but have not been saved to disk) out to the paging file, thus making that memory available for more useful purposes (processes or file cache). So while there may be some workloads that perform better with no paging file, in general having one will mean more usable memory being available to the system (never mind that Windows won’t be able to write kernel crash dumps without a paging file sized large enough to hold them).

Paging file configuration is in the System properties, which you can get to by typing “sysdm.cpl” into the Run dialog, clicking on the Advanced tab, clicking on the Performance Options button, clicking on the Advanced tab (this is really advanced), and then clicking on the Change button:

Tl:DNR The settings he recommended are actually what Windows managed Page file settings are




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users