Enable LargeSystemCache or not?

[LWM723]

Should I enable LargeSystemCache on my PC, it's not a server?

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control \Session Manager\Memory Management subkey:
LargeSystemCache

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, LWM723 said:

Should I enable LargeSystemCache on my PC, it's not a server?

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control \Session Manager\Memory Management subkey:
LargeSystemCache

Why do you think you should? Is there a reason you are considering doing it?

 

Best advice I can ever give anyone about reg edits... unless you have an actual reason to do them, don't do them.

[LWM723]

So you don't know anything about the LargeSystemCache?

[GuiltySpark_]

Just now, LWM723 said:

So you don't know anything about the LargeSystemCache?

The question was, do you? What exactly it does, the history of what its for and the benefit it will or will not give you.

[LWM723]

Do you?

[Levent]

No

[GoodBytes]

7 hours ago, LWM723 said:

Should I enable LargeSystemCache on my PC, it's not a server?

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control \Session Manager\Memory Management subkey:
LargeSystemCache

You do whatever you want. Microsoft says its deprecated and does nothing;

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/cimwin32prov/win32-operatingsystem

 

If you wonder what it used to do back in XP/Server 2003 days:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/memory/memory-limits-for-windows-releases

Quote

System cache virtual address space (physical size limited only by physical memory)

[For 32-bit] Limited by available kernel-mode virtual address space or the SystemCacheLimit registry key value. [...] Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP: 860 MB with LargeSystemCache registry key set and without 4GT; up to 448 MB with 4GT.

[For 64-bit] Always 1 TB regardless of physical RAM Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2: 16 TB. Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP: Up to 1 TB depending on configuration and RAM.

 

And here is the doc of the registry:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2003/cc784562(v=ws.10)

 

Quote

Specifies whether the system maintains a standard size or a large size file system cache, and influences how often the system writes changed pages to disk.

Increasing the size of the file system cache generally improves server performance, but it reduces the physical memory space available to applications and services. Similarly, writing system data less frequently minimizes use of the disk subsystem, but the changed pages occupy memory that might otherwise be used by applications.

Value	Meaning
0	Establishes a standard size file-system cache of approximately 8 MB. The system allows changed pages to remain in physical memory until the number of available pages drops to approximately 1,000. This setting is recommended for servers running applications that do their own memory caching, such as Microsoft SQL Server, and for applications that perform best with ample memory, such as Internet Information Services (IIS).
1	Establishes a large system cache working set that can expand to physical memory, minus 4 MB, if needed. The system allows changed pages to remain in physical memory until the number of available pages drops to approximately 250. This setting is recommended for most computers running Windows Server 2003 on large networks.

 

I'll let you decide what to do... Trust Microsoft documentation or some shit site who couldn't be bother to read the doc, let alone test themselves. But the clicks! it get clicks! And that is all that matter. More than the actual effect it does to your system or if whatever they say is actually related to the topic, that is for sure. And, well, too late at this point you clicked on their link.

 

[LWM723]

@GoodBytes Thanks for the detailed explanation. I had no idea what it actually did. I'll just make sure it's disabled, if it's in the registry.

[Xii-Nyth]

I always thought this was referring to the pagefile. Guess I was wrong

 

I wonder if having less virtual cache (ideally 0) prevents things from going into disk because the os got scared it was about to run out of memory, just because something made specifically to use all memory uses just in time purging or something?

 

(pretend im on xp for the sake of the question)