Enable Large Address Aware (for 64-bit systems with >3GBs of RAM)

[D-Inferno]

Regarding reporting the RAM limit thing to SEGA, couldn't we have someone on this forum who actually lives in Japan report this?

[IzzyData]

Yes, I understand that the concept of virtual addresses and how they may not correspond with a physical address is tough. But just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean that it is wrong.

Linking a bunch of semi related links and expecting it to be some kind of evidence to your point doesn't work. Reading through them all I see is some old issues on either vista or dx9 that aren't exactly this problem.

I find no evidence that the virtual address space for anything would be larger than the amount that is mapped to physical memory.

[Ana-Chan]

Then I wonder if you really read and understood what was written.

First of all, it is exactly that is described with the Microsoft KB link. PSO2 uses DirectX9, and so the kb link gives an explanation of what happens with DirectX9 and how DirectX10 fixes things. The fact that it is related to Vista has nothing to do with the DirectX9 problem. On XP, Vista and 7, DirectX9 still has to keep an in memory copy of the display resources which is around the same size as the video memory it uses, and as settings and resolutions increase, the required video memory increases and so does the process specific memory usage. The OP did specify the conditions that he was getting it after a bit of prodding, 1080 resolution and some forced on memory hungry settings.

Anyway, isn't the whole "I find no evidence" a subtle use of the burden of proof logic falacy? Basically you are subtly saying that for you (and likely anyone who reads this thread) to believe, someone should actually prove that it is possible for an application to use large portions of it's virtual address space but not use any RAM? If so, I also invite you to prove the converse.

[IzzyData]

This is the only instance I can find where there would be more virtual adresses used than physical ones. Although the difference would be insignificant for a few shared .dlls. Also this is only for windows programs. There probably wont be any shared memory between pso and anything else.

When multiple instances of the same Windows-based application are loaded, each instance is run in its own protected virtual address space. However, their instance handles (hInstance) typically have the same value. This value represents the base address of the application in its virtual address space. If each instance can be loaded into its default base address, it can map to and share the same physical pages with the other instances, using copy-on-write protection.

http://www.tenouk.com/WinVirtualAddressSpace.html

You said you were using 1.2gb of virtual address space? I'd love to know what you are using to view that number.

[Ana-Chan]

This is the only instance I can find where there would be more virtual adresses used than physical ones. Although the difference would be insignificant for a few shared .dlls. Also this is only for windows programs. There probably wont be any shared memory between pso and anything else.

I gave you the other major one too, which you passed off as semi related. File mapping maps the contents of a file into the address space of a process. The only time that takes physical RAM is when you write to it, and that is a kernel mode cache that goes away after it flushes the data to disk (and the cache is only the size of the modified contets). For simply reading from the file, it uses nothing but the standard operating system file caches.

Since we don't know how SEGA has implemented the internals, they could be using this method for the data files.

You said you were using 1.2gb of virtual address space? I'd love to know what you are using to view that number.

Process explorer (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb896653.aspx). You will need to show the virtual size column, but that is the amount of the virtual address space the process has used so far.

[IzzyData]

The difference between the working set and the number it gives for "Virtual size" is all unused memory. It might be allocated and ready to be used but it still wont go much higher than the working set which sits at around 1gb.

Also the only difference I'm seeing between the working set and the physical memory usage is shared memory which isn't very big.

I've been trying to find another program or game that exceeds 2gb virtual size but I don't think I have anything that gets within 500mb. I'm really curious as to what would happen.

Edit: So I found an interesting program. Microsofts sqlserver actually allocated NINE GIGABYTES of space to "virtual size". Here is their comment on it.

As we noted before, this behavior is expected. We reserve but do not commit the memory up front to minimize holes in our virtual address space. This should not affect actual memory usage by other applications.

http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServ...-a-fresh-start

Which in turn means that the virtual size hardly even matters. The only important factor is the working set. Which again, will never exceed 2gb. The virtual size isn't even going to exceed 2gb.

[Ana-Chan]

It really seems like you don't understand what the working set is. It is also cute how you class over 200MB as not much.

[IzzyData]

I don't think you understand why this entire thread is a non issue.

[Ana-Chan]

If it was such a non issue, why did the OP have a problem?

You also understand all of the situations where an allocation can fail right? As in, the process doesn't have to have all of it's available address space completely used up.

Also, since you are claiming to not have an issue, or the entire thread is a non issue, you have the same graphic settings as the OP and are not seeing the issue right?

True, for most this is a non issue. Not everyone uses insane resolutions and insane settings. The average user would never need this, but it is always the edge cases that are the problem.

[IzzyData]

Nowhere in the OP did it say this solved an issue for him. Nowhere in this thread did anyone say it actually solved an error. People are just claiming they possibly see a performance increase. Which probably isn't true.

I am playing on 1920x1080 and max settings already so there isn't any way to exceed that amount of resource usage from this game.

Your point is moot. I don't know why you are defending this so hard. How does this benefit you?