Thread: Uh, pagepool?
View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-15-2008, 04:49 PM
gguruusa's Avatar
gguruusa
Deep Thinker
Offline
Location: Mountain top
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,252
Reputation: 4726
gguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributionsgguruusa should be added to the payroll for their contributions
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Re: Uh, pagepool?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch View Post
Does the 32MB come right out of the total (113MB I think on my vzw phone), and show up in the % of ram that is being used by windows? As in, if I cook with 12MB pagepool, I will see a lower percentage of ram being used by windows (at startup with no programs running) than if I cook with 32MB pagepool? If that's true, then I presume you wouldn't want to use a pagepool size that leaves you with like 99% of ram being used without opening any programs. . . that's what you mean by test it out right. . . finding the sweet spot for whatever you happen to have installed. Less resident stuff running would mean capability for bigger pagepool size, right? Hope that makes sense. Thanks for any input.
I don't think it shows in the %, as it is part of the overhead layer. The rest of what you surmise is correct. Not just less resident stuff, but smaller stuff means opportunity for larger pagepool. On the flip side, allocating more than you need is pointless.
__________________
Grammar: The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.
Reply With Quote