My machine is notifing me often that my VM is too low

If you mean you are seeing an informative message like this:Virtual Memory Minimum Too Low: Your system is low on virtual memory. Windows is increasing the size of your virtual memory paging file.That means Windows XP is letting you know it is doing it's job. The message is not an error message - it is an informational message.If XP thinks the size of the paging file (usually c:\pagefile.sys) is too small to accommodate your current operations it will adjust the paging file to make the paging file larger and display that message as it does so. It is not necessarily a "problem", but the message is annoying.Sometimes the message indicates somebody has been tampering with the XP paging file settings to try to solve some other problem that usually has nothing to do with their paging file and adjusted things in an inefficient manner. It could also mean that the settings were never set properlyin the first place when XP was first installed.To see what your current settings are, right click My Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance Settings, Advanced tab, Virtual Memory, then click the Change button.Unless you know more about managing memory that Windows XP, it is usually best to just let XP handle the size of your virtual memory paging file.The best setting for the Paging file size is usually going to be:System managed sizeWindows XP will try to allocate a paging file approximately 1.5 times the total amount of the RAM installed in your system. Letting Windows XP handle the paging file size is adequate for most configurations.If your system is not set to System managed size, you need to determine how it got changed and why (usually some wrong reason), make a note of the current settings so you can change them back later if needed, then change the setting to System managed size, click the Set button and then click Apply to commit the changes (you will be asked to reboot). "Because somebody told me to" is not a good reason to start making adjustments to the paging file size. Just adjusting it to make it larger by some arbitrary value may relieve the symptom of the problem and stop the message, but may not result in the best configuration for your system.If you want your system to run as efficiently as possible, you need to figure out what is going on and fix it properly and not just start trying things or make some arbitrary adjustments. The size of the paging file may really need adjusting, but you should at least try to know what you are doing and why you need to do it. It is unlikely that anybody can tell you how to adjust your settings properly without more information.If you are not sure what the best settings are or if you are not sure what your settings need to be, do this:Click Start, Run and in the box enter:msinfo32Click OK, and when the System Summary info appears, click Edit, Select All, Copy and then paste the results back here.There will be some personal information (like System Name and User Name), and whatever appears to be private information to you, just delete the personal information from the pasted information. This will minimize back and forth Q&A and eliminate guesswork and assumptions.Without this system information, suggestions for adjustments are most likely to be only guesses.After making any adjustments to your settings, reboot, then check the paging file settings again to make sure they "stick", then test your system again and see if you still get the message. If you are still seeing the message, you can determine what applications are running that are consuming so much of your virtual memory that Windows XP needs to keep adjusting it. When you know that information, then you can decide what to do to resolve the issue.Some antivirus and antimalware applications are notorious for consuming large amounts of virtual memory (like the Spybot Teatimer).Describe your current antivirus and anti malware situation: McAfee, Symantec, Norton, Spybot, AVG, Avira!, MSE, Panda, Trend Micro, CA, Defender, ZoneAlarm, PC Tools, Comodo, etc.You can determine how applications are using your virtual memory and which ones are using the most virtual memory by using Task Manager.To do that:Right click the Taskbar, choose Task Manager and select the Processes tab.Click View, Select Columns, check the box that says: Virtual Memory Size. Expand the height and width of the Task Manager by dragging the corners and edges so you can see all the columns and processes in one window if possible.Double click a column heading in Task Manager to sort by that column. For example, sort Task Manager by the CPU or Virtual Memory size column.Here is an example of what my poor Task Manager looks like (including the Virtual Memory information column):http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6530/taskmanagerv.jpgOn your system, what are the top 5 processes that are using the most Virtual Memory? You too can make a screen shot of your Task Manager and we can provide ideas and advice that does not involve randomly trying things.Do, or do not. There is no try.I need YOUR votes and points for helpful replies and Propose as Answers. I am saving up for a pony!

right click My Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance Settings, Advanced tab, Virtual Memory,then click the Change button. deselect auto and instead enable custom size. then set min =2 and max = 1152 then apply and reboot. -- db`...><)))> --> sent via windows live mail."m miller" wrote in message news:7fac194f-33b3-4b12-8ab5-77b0dd1856c8...My machine is notifing me often that my VM is too lowdb`...>-)))> `...>-)))> share the nirvana mann

“right click My Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance Settings, Advanced tab, Virtual Memory,then click the Change button.” deselect “auto” and instead enable “custom size”. then set min =2 and max = 1152 then apply and reboot. -- db·´¯`·...¸><)))º> --> sent via windows live mail."m miller" wrote in message news:7fac194f-33b3-4b12-8ab5-77b0dd1856c8...My machine is notifing me often that my VM is too lowdb·´¯`·...¸>-)))º> ·´¯`·...¸>-)))º> share the nirvana mannYour answer to this problem is flawed. Paging file settings are determined by the amount of installed ram. The OP never said how much ram is installed. As a result, it is impractical to give the OP a fixed number to set the paging file to.I don't vote for myself I'm not here for the points. If this post helps you, vote. Visit my forum @ http://repairbotsonline.com/

thank you for the information. however, I am fully aware of the standard principle and I know exactly what I posted and why. the flaw is not being able to think outside of the box. -- db`...><)))> --> sent via windows live mail."joelj1964" wrote in message news:0d19a55f-7f89-40f1-a8a5-ce0037a98a2f...right click My Computer, Properties, Advanced, Performance Settings, Advanced tab, Virtual Memory,then click the Change button. deselect auto and instead enable custom size. then set min =2 and max = 1152 then apply and reboot. -- db`...><)))> --> sent via windows live mail."m miller" wrote in message news:7fac194f-33b3-4b12-8ab5-77b0dd1856c8...My machine is notifing me often that my VM is too lowdb`...>-)))> `...>-)))> share the nirvana mannYour answer to this problem is flawed. Paging file settings are determined by the amount of installed ram. The OP never said how much ram is installed. As a result, it is impractical to give the OP a fixed number to set the paging file to.I don't vote for myself I'm not here for the points. If this post helps you, vote. Visit my forum @ http://repairbotsonline.com/db`...>-)))> `...>-)))> share the nirvana mann

The OP never said how much ram is installed. As a result, it is impractical to give the OP a fixed number to set the paging file to.JoelWhat you say is true, except that this statement "Paging file settings are determined by the amount of installed ram" by you is misleading. The multiple of installed ram is used to calculate a recommendation for the size of the pagefile. My recollection is that it was introduced with Windows XP but the multiple has not stood the test of time. Alex Nicholl wrote a definitive article many years ago explaining why using a multiple was not the right way to determine the size.http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htmMost users favour the "Let Windows manage the pagefile" approach. However, there are a significant number of users who favour using a "minimum = maximum fixed pagefile". The value to be used is a matter of judgement. If the pagefile is created from the start it will help minimise fragmentation of files and free disk space. Placing the pagefile in a dedicated partition, which is the first partition on a second internal drive gives similar benefits. However, you need to keep a 50 mb partition on C if you follow this approach.The approach suggested by DatabaseBen has been always been there to be used but it does not have the advantages of the methods outlined above. You can ask Database Ben to explain why he suggests what is in his post but I doubt that you will get an argued resonse. He never justifies what he says and I have read many of his posts over the years.Hope this helps, Gerry Cornell

What you say is true, except that this statement "Paging file settings are determined by the amount of installed ram" by you is misleading. The multiple of installed ram is used to calculate a recommendation for the size of the pagefile. My recollection is that it was introduced with Windows XP but the multiple has not stood the test of time. Alex Nicholl wrote a definitive article many years ago explaining why using a multiple was not the right way to determine the size.http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htmMost users favour the "Let Windows manage the pagefile" approach. However, there are a significant number of users who favour using a "minimum = maximum fixed pagefile". The value to be used is a matter of judgement. If the pagefile is created from the start it will help minimise fragmentation of files and free disk space. Placing the pagefile in a dedicated partition, which is the first partition on a second internal drive gives similar benefits. However, you need to keep a 50 mb partition on C if you follow this approach.The approach suggested by DatabaseBen has been always been there to be used but it does not have the advantages of the methods outlined above. You can ask Database Ben to explain why he suggests what is in his post but I doubt that you will get an argued resonse. He never justifies what he says and I have read many of his posts over the years.Hope this helps, Gerry CornellThanks for the post. Perhaps what I should have stated was that the amount of installed ram should be used to determine the paging file size.I have previously read the article you link to. However, I respectfully disagree with many of the notions contained therein. I will not get into the particulars since much of which is likely to only confuse the OP or other inexperienced users. I will, however, state that one notion I disagree with is placing the paging file on the primary drive is best. It is my opinion, as well as many other techs I know, that paging file is best suited on a logical drive dedicated to paging file only. I will add that the logical drive should be on the same physical drive as the OS. Asking the computer to utilize extra resources accessing another physical drive defies common sense to me. Of course these are just my opinions based on my personal experience. Others may come to a different conclusion given their particular circumstance. In any event, with today's hard drive seek rates I imagine the difference between any chosen method is minimal.Experience has taught me that if the paging file is set lower than the amount of installed ram a low virtual ram warning is eminent. Setting the paging file to a size larger than 2 x the installed ram will cause system lags. 1.5 to 2 x the installed ram seems to be, in my experience, the best setting. Alternatively, system managed seems to work well also.As to the post by DatabaseBen, I have no desire to ask for an explanation. The answer is flawed based on the evolution of knowledge regarding paging file size. It is very outdated.I don't vote for myself I'm not here for the points. If this post helps you, vote. Visit my forum @ http://repairbotsonline.com/

1. I should have stated was that the amount of installed ram should be used to determine the paging file size.2. I respectfully disagree with many of the notions contained therein.3. I will not get into the particulars since much of which is likely to only confuse the OP or other inexperienced users.4. I will, however, state that one notion I disagree with is placing the paging file on the primary drive is best5. A logical drive dedicated to paging file only. I will add that the logical drive should be on the same physical drive as the OS. Asking the computer to utilize extra resources accessing another physical drive defies common sense to me.6. Experience has taught me that if the paging file is set lower than the amount of installed ram a low virtual ram warning is eminent. Setting the paging file to a size larger than 2 x the installed ram will cause system lags. 1.5 to 2 x the installed ram seems to be, in my experience, the best setting.7. Alternatively, system managed seems to work well alsoJoelYou seem not to be understanding fully a series of points. In order that these are not left unchallenged I have singled out and numbered the various issues which need clarification.1. The amount of installed RAM is only germane to the extent that it contributes to the total memory available to satisfy memory demands needed to run the system and programmes efficiently. All sorts of consequences can arise if there is insufficient memory to service demand. Thus the appropriate measure is to determine by testing what is the total memory required and deduct the installed RAM to determine the notional pagefile size needed. Smart users add on a comfort zone. Your approach is flawed as it fails totally to take into account situations where the installed RAM is either far too little or far more than is best suited to meet the demands coming from the system, programmes and the way the computer is used.In reality over reliance on the pagefile is not consistent with good system performance. Accessing the pagefile is far slower than accessing RAM. Adding RAM to reduce the pagefile is to be recommended where memory is clearly what is is holding back performance. However, I would always recommend that the way the user uses the computer should be carefully scrutinised first as that can be a cheaper solution.2. Alex Nicholl's views on the pagefile are as valid today as they were when they were formulated. It is only on a few peripheral issues that the opinions held by more experienced users have been updated. Alex is no longer able to speak for himself but there are many who knew him who agree with what I say.3. Your post will already have confused less experienced users. I am hoping this post goes some way towards making the issues clearer.4. What Alex Nicholl actually said was "If you have only one physical drive then the file is best left where the heads are most likely to be, so where most activity is going on — on drive C:. If you have a second physical drive, it is in principle better to put the file there, because it is then less likely that the heads will have moved away from it.". This means do not place the pagefile on any partition other than the first partition, otherwise place it in the first partition on the second drive. You seem to be advocating putting the pagefile in the second or later partition on the first drive which runs contrary to the established consensus on the placement of the pagefile. Is that what you really believe?5. A dedicated pagefile partition gives similar benefits to a fixed maximum = minimum pagefile. The point where we part company is your notion concerning placement as indicated in 4 above.6. Your conclusions are incorrect for the reasons put forward in 1 above. If the initial assessment was correct you should get no problems until you make a change which substantially increases demands for memory. Thus carrying out extensive prolonged editing of photographs where this usage was not contemplated when the assessment of memory needs was made can cause this issue to surface. It is the undo feature in this type of software which leads to unexpected higher memory demands. Photo editing is only one example. There are many more changes that can trigger problems.7. Letting Windows manage does work well for many users. It works well where there is an abundance of free disk space. Where the free disk space starts to go down from 60 % the problems start. Most users will not notice problems until the free disk space is much lower than 60%. At around 60% it starts to impact on the ability of the user to create a contiguous fixed size pagefile. A fragmented pagefile fragments free disk space, which in turn leads to fragmented files. It is like a snow ball gathering more snow as you roll it downhill. Users will not notice any problem for a long time but defragmenting will take increasingly longer until the point arises when you cannot run Disk Defragmenter and System Restore cannot create new restore points. A fixed contiguous pagefile eliminates the pagefile from being a contributory factor to file fragmentation and reduces the time it takes to defragment.Hope this helps, Gerry Cornell

Thanks for the post.4. What Alex Nicholl actually said was "If you have only one physical drive then the file is best left where the heads are most likely to be, so where most activity is going on — on drive C:. If you have a second physical drive, it is in principle better to put the file there, because it is then less likely that the heads will have moved away from it.".I did, in fact, read it correctly and respectfully disagreed. It is my position that, even with a second physical drive, paging file is best left on the same physical drive as the os but, on a logical drive.I suppose it is best to agree to disagree at this point to prevent further confusion. I doubt the basic inexperienced user will find either of our post to be written in English.I don't vote for myself I'm not here for the points. If this post helps you, vote. Visit my forum @ http://repairbotsonline.com/