5.0 crash/'not enough virtual memory left'

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

5.0 crash/'not enough virtual memory left'

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> Unofficial Tech Support By Gamers for Gamers >> 5.0 crash/'not enough virtual memory left'

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

5.0 crash/'not enough virtual memory left' - 5/7/2001 8:27:00 PM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

Installed the 5.0 patch, rebooted, deleted the .prf file and rebooted again. Loaded one of the new scenarios to check out the new features, saved and reloaded it a couple times then a message box popped up: 'you have less than 5meg of virtual memory left...'. I hit OK to close the box and the game exited. Never saw this message (or any message or error come to think of it) in any previous version. Is there some game setting I missed or need to change on my machine? I have my virtual memory set to 256mb (min and max).

_____________________________

Jim NSB

Post #: 1

- 5/7/2001 8:30:00 PM

Jarnis

Posts: 18
Joined: 5/7/2001
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by tracer: Installed the 5.0 patch, rebooted, deleted the .prf file and rebooted again. Loaded one of the new scenarios to check out the new features, saved and reloaded it a couple times then a message box popped up: 'you have less than 5meg of virtual memory left...'. I hit OK to close the box and the game exited. Never saw this message (or any message or error come to think of it) in any previous version. Is there some game setting I missed or need to change on my machine? I have my virtual memory set to 256mb (min and max).

Depending on your main ram and Windows version, that 256MB is either OK or far too little. I myself have Win2K, 256MB Main Ram, and I still run 700MB fixed swap file. Programs tend to hog memory nowdays like no tomorrow. There might also be a memory leak in v5.0. I'll let you know if I see any such thing tonight when playing myself. - Jarnis

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 2

- 5/7/2001 10:17:00 PM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Jarno 'Jarnis' Kokko: Depending on your main ram and Windows version, that 256MB is either OK or far too little. I myself have Win2K, 256MB Main Ram, and I still run 700MB fixed swap file. Programs tend to hog memory nowdays like no tomorrow. There might also be a memory leak in v5.0. I'll let you know if I see any such thing tonight when playing myself. - Jarnis

I just built this system last month and set the swap file to what my last one was. Since this new hard drive is 10x the size of my previous one I think I can afford to bump up the size of the swap file a bit ;)

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 3

- 5/7/2001 10:50:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

The game is a memeory hog, and its possible there is a memory leak...code optimization has not been as high a priority and getting things to work at all! I have seen that virtual memory problem, but usually when I have lots of other stuff open at the same time, or have had multiple instance s of the program open at once (in win2k) for testing. LImiting the number of other apps (particular MS office ones that suck memory too...) open seems to keep it a very rare occurance to my experience [ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 4

- 5/7/2001 11:05:00 PM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: The game is a memeory hog, and its possible there is a memory leak...code optimization has not been as high a priority and getting things to work at all! I have seen that virtual memory problem, but usually when I have lots of other stuff open at the same time, or have had multiple instance s of the program open at once (in win2k) for testing. LImiting the number of other apps (particular MS office ones that suck memory too...) open seems to keep it a very rare occurance to my experience [ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

It looks like I just had it set too low Paul; after I increased it to 800mb the problem didn't reappear. And 'for your file' the only program I have running in the backround is my firewall (Zone Alarm)and my OS is Win98SE. V5.0 is the best yet...can't wait for my MC CD to arrive. Only thing I'm afraid of now is that the SPWAW team gets snatched up by some big company...thanks for a great game.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 5

- 5/8/2001 1:58:00 AM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

Hmmm. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong. With win98 I'm letting windows set my virtual memory. And I always heard virtual mem had to be a multiplier of ram or something like that. I have 160 meg ram, can I just set vm at 800 meg?

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 6

- 5/8/2001 3:02:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

IT will take over a corresponding ly large chunk of your HD. I have tested on WINME with a default (ie let win do it for me) VM size. As long as you have 64MB Ram it should work OK for most scenarios.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 7

- 5/8/2001 3:41:00 AM

Don Doom

Posts: 2446
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Lost somewhere in the upper backwoods of Michigan!
Status: offline

Did not get this problem, I have 128MB ran with two 10G HD. C:\ for op systems with SPWAW and wifes games loaded on D:\. Works great. :D :D :D

_____________________________

Doom
Vet of the Russian General Winter
For death is only the begining

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 8

- 5/8/2001 6:27:00 AM

rich12545

Posts: 1705
Joined: 10/31/2000
From: Palouse, WA
Status: offline

Nice to know. Thanks for the help. Now I'm just waiting for the disk. :)

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 9

- 5/8/2001 7:22:00 AM

waynef

Posts: 128
Joined: 8/25/2000
From: plano, tx,usa
Status: offline

Check out PC Gamer, May '01, Page 50, Tweak your Vitual Memory. "PC Gamer recommends that you use 2.5 times the amount of your system RAM, up to 512MB, and no less than 256MB. In other words, if you've got 128MB of RAM, you're going to want to set your vitual memory to 320MB (2.5 X 128 =320). :eek:

_____________________________

"At My Signal...Unleash Hell" Thanks, Wayne

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 10

- 5/8/2001 7:29:00 AM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by rich12545: Hmmm. Maybe I'm doing it all wrong. With win98 I'm letting windows set my virtual memory. And I always heard virtual mem had to be a multiplier of ram or something like that. I have 160 meg ram, can I just set vm at 800 meg?

Rich, There advantages to both. By letting Windows set your swap file size it adjusts it so it doesn't take up alot of HD space, and you won't run out of memory (up to your free HD capacity). If you can afford the space, setting it manually increases your computer's performance. Have you ever noticed when you're just reading your screen (no input) and your HD starts chugging away? Alot of times thats Windows adjusting your swap file. I learned this trick about 6 years ago while playing Quake online...I'd be in the middle of a firefight when suddenly my screen would freeze because Windoze decided it was a good time to 'do some housekeeping' and would steal enough resources to bring my machine to its knees. I have 256mb of physical RAM and a 75gig HD, so the choice is obvious for me...sacrifice the 800mb of HD real estate. YMMV EDIT: Min and Max swap file size need to be the same to enjoy the advantage I mentioned above. [ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: tracer ]

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 11

- 5/8/2001 9:46:00 AM

BobRoyall

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/7/2001
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

I've seen so many sides of the virtual memory argument that I'm not sure exactly what is the "correct" setting. But in 5+ years experience with Win9x I've found the best advice is to definitely take control away from Windows. No matter what you set the swapfile size at it's better to have a standard base that is used in place, never fragmented by growing and shrinking. If you have the hard drive space, 300+ megabytes is suggested. I keep mine at 350mb. But one thing I have found out is to set this as the "minimum" value! I know some people also set a "maximum" value but unless you keep an extremely large swapfile, you're asking for trouble, i.e., memory shortages. I realize that if your swapfile grows larger than your minimum that it will create extra drive activity and that the extra section will fragment. Solution: set a minimum that is large enough that you can live with and leave the maximum value as unlimited. With the newer, larger, less-expensive hard drives available today, there's no reason not to have a decent swapfile that you don't have to worry about. And on the rare occassion I do load too many things at once I still have a swapfile that will grow to handle it without crashing the machine.

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 12

- 5/8/2001 9:57:00 AM

BruceAZ

Posts: 608
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: California
Status: offline

What you are suggesting is to reset the VM settings to a Min Setting (value) of 2.5 times your existing RAM and leave the Max Setting on "No Maximum"? If this is correct, and I have 256MB of RAM, then the settings would be 640 for minimum and leave the max at "No Minimum?" I have heard that you should try and keep the min and max numbers the same but then again, I am not a computer wiz... Any advice?

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 13

- 5/8/2001 10:31:00 AM

tracer

Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by 5thRecon: What you are suggesting is to reset the VM settings to a Min Setting (value) of 2.5 times your existing RAM and leave the Max Setting on "No Maximum"? If this is correct, and I have 256MB of RAM, then the settings would be 640 for minimum and leave the max at "No Minimum?" I have heard that you should try and keep the min and max numbers the same but then again, I am not a computer wiz... Any advice?

It really depends on what programs you run: until this morning I'd never seen a 'not enough memory' window and mine was only set at 256mb. The 'guideline' numbers I've seen are usually 2 to 2 1/2 times your physical RAM; why not split the difference and use 600mb. If it turns out you need a larger swapfile its a simple matter of typing in a larger number (or even changing it back to Windows Control) and restarting. I also have my MIN and MAX values the same (forgot to mention that earlier) which is what prevents the HD hashing.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 14

- 5/8/2001 11:28:00 AM

BobRoyall

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/7/2001
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by 5thRecon: What you are suggesting is to reset the VM settings to a Min Setting (value) of 2.5 times your existing RAM and leave the Max Setting on "No Maximum"? ...I have heard that you should try and keep the min and max numbers the same but then again, I am not a computer wiz... Any advice?

If you have the drive space, set the minimum to a number high enough to cover most of your program requirements. Leave the maximum at "no limit" so the computer can expand the swapfile if it becomes necessary. That way you don't have to take the time to increase the setting, reboot, etc. With Norton Speedisk, the swapfile is defragged and moved to the front of the hard drive space for fastest access. You hate to have to run Speedisk every time you change the swapfile size. Not sure how large to set the minimum swapfile size? Dozens of utilities will monitor ram free, ram used, swapfile usage and size, etc... Set your minimum swapfile at 100mb and run one of those programs for a few days and see how big the swapfile gets. Norton System Doctor is the monitor I use. When you see the max swapfile size grow larger than your settings, increase your swapfile settings and try again. After 2-3 days of normal use, you should have a minimum swapfile size setting that you can defrag and use with minimal hard drive thrashing. And with the maximum set to "no limit", you're still covered for those unique situations where you use more memory than you would in normal computer use. :)

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 15

- 5/8/2001 12:19:00 PM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

I'm using and know others that have been using Cacheman for a while. It's free and you can get it here http://www.outertech.com/ It is for almost all versions of Windows and will set your swap file for the type usage of your machine. Simple to use.

_____________________________

(in reply to tracer)

Post #: 16