How to force the game to use all the RAM and run smoother with less HDD activity?

[ZOMBIE 999 TP]

.

[ZOMBIE 999 TP]

Ch53dVet, by the way, how many RAM you have and how many your game is using? Would be interesting to know how many RAM this game uses on a pc with a large quantity of ram, 16 GB for example.

[CatPerson]

If you're on HDD, the game's map files tend to fragment really badly before long, probably because of the way it's constantly saving progress (I think...) - plus the longer you play a single session, the more jerky it can get (that I've noticed since 13). Not sure why, the fragmenting or not liking RAM caching, who knows.

So... exit/restart the game (or whole PC) periodically and get a defragment program that allows you to degrag individual files. Like Defraggler.

Other than that ... probably just the chunk-loading issue, as already mentioned. Not much one can do about that, really...not at this unoptimized stage. It does seem a little worse in 13 than previous versions. More to load I guess, plus loading everything, not just what you can see.

I assume you've tried turning sight-distance of land/trees/grass and such lower to see if that helps at all?

I have 12RAM (+gtx 980ti) and it doesn't even get close to using all sys. RAM at once (less than 40%, in SP) even after hours of the game being on.

[ZOMBIE 999 TP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VDP5TCAK2c

[magnetmannen WW3]

you need a swap file, it puts stuff NOT needed to run the game in the pagefile, so the game gets more ram to work with. common mistake to turn it off.

[vv [FuMM]]

yeah turning off the swap file is a bad thing. Also I've noticed that windows 7 likes about 20 or more gb free on the C drive. You might want to free up some space if you haven't done so.

I have computers with 16 gb ram as a minimum and I've played around with turning off the swap file and usually it ends up with badly coded windows programs crying and slowing the system down. I would suggest you get an SSD or raid some hdd's together. If it's a laptop then the SSD route is the best to go for.

[Ook]

The Window swap file management mentality is influenced by how windows uses a lot of memory to start with, and on many machines memory is limited. Because of this, Windows gets creative with how and when things got swapped to the swap file. This works well on machines with low memory and will give you better overall performance, but Windows will not adjust for machines with a lot of memory, and will thrash the swap file even when there is loads of memory available. Because of this, you will get better performance with a minimal swap file IF you have enough physical ram.

Linux does not have this problem, and has a completely different swap file management philosophy - don't touch it until we run out of physical ram. The swap file remains untouched until physical memory is close to exhausted. Because of this, you are better off with a swap file in Linux, and without in Windows.

YMMV - don't dinker with the swap file if you don't know what you are doing.

But the current 7d2d client has a memory leak and in time will exhaust all physical ram and start to dip into the swap file and/or crash.

Postat inițial de magnetmannen:

you need a swap file, it puts stuff NOT needed to run the game in the pagefile, so the game gets more ram to work with. common mistake to turn it off.

[Ook]

Postat inițial de vv FuMM:

yeah turning off the swap file is a bad thing. Also I've noticed that windows 7 likes about 20 or more gb free on the C drive. You might want to free up some space if you haven't done so.

I have computers with 16 gb ram as a minimum and I've played around with turning off the swap file and usually it ends up with badly coded windows programs crying and slowing the system down. I would suggest you get an SSD or raid some hdd's together. If it's a laptop then the SSD route is the best to go for.

I've found that with Windows 7, if and only if you have enough physical ram, you get better performance by minimizing the swap file. I've done it both ways for years.

The risk here is that you really need 16GB or more because if you are not careful, you do something stupid and run out of memory and crash city. I would never recommend to a client to turn off the swap file, but on my few remaining windows boxex (I've switched most of them to Linux, problem solved), I always minimize the swap file and get better performance.

[vv [FuMM]]

Postat inițial de ;458606877326538448:

Postat inițial de vv FuMM:

yeah turning off the swap file is a bad thing. Also I've noticed that windows 7 likes about 20 or more gb free on the C drive. You might want to free up some space if you haven't done so.

I have computers with 16 gb ram as a minimum and I've played around with turning off the swap file and usually it ends up with badly coded windows programs crying and slowing the system down. I would suggest you get an SSD or raid some hdd's together. If it's a laptop then the SSD route is the best to go for.

I've found that with Windows 7, if and only if you have enough physical ram, you get better performance by minimizing the swap file. I've done it both ways for years.

The risk here is that you really need 16GB or more because if you are not careful, you do something stupid and run out of memory and crash city. I would never recommend to a client to turn off the swap file, but on my few remaining windows boxex (I've switched most of them to Linux, problem solved), I always minimize the swap file and get better performance.

I totally agree. A large part of the windows swap file issues stem from allowing programs to control what and how the swap file is managed. It's unfortunately common windows practice to use the swap file as on disk storage and not just for extra ram. There are good reasons to give programs control of their swap behaviour but unfortunately plenty of coders do it wrong.

Unfortunately a ramdisk solves plenty of these issues but also invokes plenty more :(.

Windows 2k used to have kernel turning options that allowed the kernel to not swap from ram. now if you have 16 or 64gb or what ever the kernel will still insist on swapping out. It's rather a shame that this behaviour can't be controlled by the user, but hey, what do we know? right? :D

I use dynamic swap and put some of it on a raid array. Even mirrored raid for the read performance boost is much better than a single disk. I find that raid is such a cheap and good performance boost these days that it's well worth the time and effort to set up. Even if it's a cheap $80 raid card it'll still be well worth it.