Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
General Vista Help and Support The general Windows Vista discussion forum, for topics not covered elsewhere. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Ludicrous (?) Number of Page Faults ?
I am looking at somebody's Vista PC with only 2 gigs of RAM installed.
SP-2, AMD Athlon LE-1620 @2.4 ghz. They are having intermittent issues with the thing seeming to freeze up. When I put Process Lasso on it I see what seem like a *lot* of PageFaults. viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...93998639175570 I also note that CPU use is pretty much pegged at 100%. Viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...95849375798146 The high Fault numbers come and go moment-to-moment. Without trying to dope out the "Hard" vs "Soft" faults, can I assume this is a case for adding a couple gigs of memory? Or is that processor just tapped out performance-capability-wise ? -- Pete Cresswell |
|
|||
Ludicrous (?) Number of Page Faults ?
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
I am looking at somebody's Vista PC with only 2 gigs of RAM installed. SP-2, AMD Athlon LE-1620 @2.4 ghz. They are having intermittent issues with the thing seeming to freeze up. When I put Process Lasso on it I see what seem like a *lot* of PageFaults. viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...93998639175570 I also note that CPU use is pretty much pegged at 100%. Viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...95849375798146 What happens when starting Windows in its safe mode? Clear the event viewer logs (right-click on each category and Clear), reboot, and hit F8 to get the boot menu to select safe mode for Windows. Then monitor for the high page fault problem for whatever seems long enough (the old log should indicate about when the problem reoccurs). Have you used a bootable disc to run memtest86? |
|
|||
Ludicrous (?) Number of Page Faults ?
Per VanguardLH:
What happens when starting Windows in its safe mode? Clear the event viewer logs (right-click on each category and Clear), reboot, and hit F8 to get the boot menu to select safe mode for Windows. Then monitor for the high page fault problem for whatever seems long enough (the old log should indicate about when the problem reoccurs). Have you used a bootable disc to run memtest86? The machine in question is about 100 miles away.... So I'll try all that if/when I can get to it in person. Those people are coming to visit next Sunday and maybe I can get them to bring the PC with them. What do you think about kicking the memory up to 4 gigs ? Or would that be wasted given 32-bit Vista ? -- Pete Cresswell |
|
|||
Ludicrous (?) Number of Page Faults ?
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:22:37 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: I am looking at somebody's Vista PC with only 2 gigs of RAM installed. SP-2, AMD Athlon LE-1620 @2.4 ghz. They are having intermittent issues with the thing seeming to freeze up. When I put Process Lasso on it I see what seem like a *lot* of Pete, I saw you use Process Lasso. I never heard of it but if you like it, it's good enough for me. It wants to put the log in C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\ProcessLasso\logs I'll admit I never look at logs, but if they write one, maybe I should. But I'm the only user of this computer. So why would I want it so deep in the directories in a place whose name I'll never remember, and which may change with win7, 8, 10, or what follows? And certainly won't be called that if I get my XP partition working again. Why not C:\data\ProcessLasso\logs ? It wants to put the ini file in C:\ProgramData\ProcessLasso\prolasso.ini That's not so bad, but why is ProgramData better than Data, if it is? PageFaults. viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...93998639175570 I also note that CPU use is pretty much pegged at 100%. Viz: https://picasaweb.google.com/1081497...95849375798146 The high Fault numbers come and go moment-to-moment. Without trying to dope out the "Hard" vs "Soft" faults, can I assume this is a case for adding a couple gigs of memory? Or is that processor just tapped out performance-capability-wise ? My Vista only has 2 gig, because it's Vista Business and was meant for an office where they were only going to be running 1, 2, maybe 3 office programs, and not surfing the web. This probably doens't apply to you, and my cpu is entirely different. I wish I had more RAM but it's cheaper to move to a box I have with 4g RAM and no OS. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|