244 replies to this topic

[Tom AZ]

As I've told you myself, Shane, I love that little program and wouldn't be without it.

[Willy2]

I know that Cleanmem (CM) works well on my computer (laptop, 512 Mb, Windows XP) because WindowsTaskmanager tells me so. I simply need this program in order to keep my laptop running more smoothly. I also noticed that Windows doesn't need to access the harddisk that often anymore.

It curtails memory usage of e.g ...... Piriform's Defraggler !!! It often keeps running in the background without being used. Then it regularly occupies over 25 Mb of memory. When CM has run memory usage can go down to about 1.5 Mb.

I don't wipe/curtail the System File Cache because then opening a folder can slow down significantly. Explorer then needs to access the harddisk again in order to extract the icons from all the files. One can literally see Windows recreate the content of that folder. And that can be (comparitively)  very time consuming.

[smc1979]

Makes me happy knowing you guys like my work.

I care about my work and take a lot of pride in it. Which I hope shows in all my programs and support.

Treat people right, they will treat you the same. :-D

It is a double edge sword though. Caring so much about my work means I take things said about it to heart. And stress about things I really shouldn't stress about lol.

Shane

[smc1979]

I thought I would also elaborate more on some users saying CleanMem has stopped some memory errors and made some things more stable.

This is for anyone who is wondering how a user would come up with using less memory as being more stable.

(This is simply my opinion on this and I am looking at it from a repair tech & programmer point of view)

On a system that is under heavy page file usage you get a higher price for using the page file. And not just the slow down.
The hard drive can have a bad file system and even bad sectors, or even a highly fragmented page file. If the page file is messed up in any way from this it will cause the memory in that bad location to fault. Either killing the program or blue screening windows all together.

This is no different than having bad memory. The hard drive just simply is a very large price to pay.

When users use CleanMem and the page file usage is reduced, we also reduce the chances of the crashes caused from the page file. So in turn things "appear" more stable.
But the programs themselves are no more stable than they where before. They are simply more stable by avoiding (In my opinion, the death trap) of the page file.

From a programmers point, a program doesn't know if the memory it is using is in the physical memory or the page file.

Did I explain this correctly? lol

-Shane

[smc1979]

Willy2, on 04 January 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

I know that Cleanmem (CM) works well on my computer (laptop, 512 Mb, Windows XP) because WindowsTaskmanager tells me so. I simply need this program in order to keep my laptop running more smoothly. I also noticed that Windows doesn't need to access the harddisk that often anymore.

It curtails memory usage of e.g ...... Piriform's Defraggler !!! It often keeps running in the background without being used. Then it regularly occupies over 25 Mb of memory. When CM has run memory usage can go down to about 1.5 Mb.

I don't wipe/curtail the System File Cache because then opening a folder can slow down significantly. Explorer then needs to access the harddisk again in order to extract the icons from all the files. One can literally see Windows recreate the content of that folder. And that can be (comparitively)  very time consuming.

Thanks for letting my know the file cache does that. Its not suppose to, I am using the same api as here
http://technet.micro...ernals/bb897561

Quote

You may notice that the Cache's size changes immediately and then proceeds to shrink or grow quickly. This is because the system automatically trims working sets once a second. The Cache pages that are released are still in memory, but can be relinquished quickly for use by other programs that need more memory. Similarly, the Cache can eaily regain pages as applications access file system data.

So if you can confirm that the file cache is causing that I will make the file cache disabled as default instead of enabled :-)

Shane

[slowday444]

I love Firefox and extensions.  Kind of like moding a car.  So a while ago I changed CM's schedule to every 10 minutes on this old XP.  Like I said, been using it since Shane developed it.

[cookieeater]

Do you check the "Automatically start at Windows startup" option?

[Willy2]

@smc1979,

I must eat a part of my own words. I tried a number of things and it seems that putting the words ""file cache"" in the CM ignore list didn't prevent Windows from being forced to rebuild the content of a folder. To again extract the icons from the files on the harddisk.

It could be attributed to the following: Memory usage on my computer doesn't exceed approx. 55% (according to CM 1.65). I ran Defraggler and its memory usage went briefly above 41 Mb and that ""excessive"" memory usage could have forced the Windows XP memory manager to flush a part of the memory which contained precisely those icons.

That begs the question: what is the other approx. 45% of the memory used for ? To store datafiles (mp3, text files), systemfiles (*.dll ???). It seems it certainly contains those (folder-)icons.

[smc1979]

Willy2, on 06 January 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

@smc1979,

I must eat a part of my own words. I tried a number of things and it seems that putting the words ""file cache"" in the CM ignore list didn't prevent Windows from being forced to rebuild the content of a folder. To again extract the icons from the files on the harddisk.

It could be attributed to the following: Memory usage on my computer doesn't exceed approx. 55% (according to CM 1.65). I ran Defraggler and its memory usage went briefly above 41 Mb and that ""excessive"" memory usage could have forced the Windows XP memory manager to flush a part of the memory which contained precisely those icons.

That begs the question: what is the other approx. 45% of the memory used for ? To store datafiles (mp3, text files), systemfiles (*.dll ???). It seems it certainly contains those (folder-)icons.

I am working on a new version of the min monitor to include a key hook function, so you can set what key to hit on your keyboard and have cleanmem run. I use this for when I am in games.
Also adding a few other things.

Any changes you think I should make while I am at it?

Shane

[Nergal]

smc1979, on 06 January 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Any changes you think I should make while I am at it?

Shane

Shane: Windows 7 32bit Ignore List batch file does not work (even if run as admin) I had to manually paste my ignore list into %systemroot%\system32\

[smc1979]

Nergal, on 06 January 2011 - 06:04 PM, said:

Shane: Windows 7 32bit Ignore List batch file does not work (even if run as admin) I had to manually paste my ignore list into %systemroot%\system32\

Before I had the mini monitor there was no GUI for cleanmem. So I had the txt files.

Now that I have the mini monitor I am thinking of making a gui for the settings as well now :-)

Shane

[Eli]

smc1979, on 06 January 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

I am working on a new version of the min monitor to include a key hook function, so you can set what key to hit on your keyboard and have cleanmem run. I use this for when I am in games.
Also adding a few other things.

Any changes you think I should make while I am at it?

Shane

HI Shane
A suggested change:Set a level of CPU activity to delay cleanmem cheduled task when CPU is very busy.
Thank you for your exellent product.

[smc1979]

Eli, on 07 January 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

HI Shane
A suggested change:Set a level of CPU activity to delay cleanmem cheduled task when CPU is very busy.
Thank you for your exellent product.

I could do something like that.

May I ask why you want that feature? To be honest I am on a quad core 3.4ghz per core system, so CPU isn't really a problem. Do you notice a hit to the system when you have your cpu maxed? say on a single or dual core?
If so then this would be a good option.

Only problem would be that cleanmem runs from the task scheduler. In order for me to do advanced options like that I can let the user choose between using cleanmem by the task scheduler or using the mini monitor. Then I can build the cleanmem functions into the min monitor, and since it will be running all the time (If a user wants) then I can add advanced monitoring like CPU and more.

Shane

[Eli]

smc1979, on 07 January 2011 - 01:15 AM, said:

I could do something like that.

May I ask why you want that feature? To be honest I am on a quad core 3.4ghz per core system, so CPU isn't really a problem. Do you notice a hit to the system when you have your cpu maxed? say on a single or dual core?
If so then this would be a good option.

Only problem would be that cleanmem runs from the task scheduler. In order for me to do advanced options like that I can let the user choose between using cleanmem by the task scheduler or using the mini monitor. Then I can build the cleanmem functions into the min monitor, and since it will be running all the time (If a user wants) then I can add advanced monitoring like CPU and more.

Shane

I`m on  64x2 AMD dual core processor 3800+ and I personally don`t notice any change that I can tell about,after all it takes only about 1 second to complete the task. I`ll  roll it back to you, the question is if you think that cleanmem hits the CPU on that scheduled operation so that it will justify the effort.

[smc1979]

Eli, on 07 January 2011 - 02:23 AM, said:

I`m on  64x2 AMD dual core processor 3800+ and I personally don`t notice any change that I can tell about,after all it is takes only about 1 second to complete the task. I`ll  roll it back to you, the question is if you think that cleanmem hits the CPU on that scheduled operation so that it will justify the effort.

Thats what is hard to tell. Last night was playing Battlefield 2 Vietnam with some friends.
I gave them all a test exe that would run cleanmem when they hit the "T" key on their keyboard. As we where all in game I had them all run cleanmem during a firefight and none of them felt any hicups or anything. (They all now love cleanmem lol)

I have dual monitors, I had the mini monitor on the 2nd screen. While playing I ran cleanmem and 400 mb of memory where freed from the game and it didn't skip a beat. the game would slowly climb back up, but I have cleanmem running every 15 min on my system. (I also have 8gb of ram and my page file disabled)

They did not have their page file disabled, and we all have pretty high end gaming rigs. (So not sure how good of a test this would be vs older systems, but this is while playing a game after all)

CPU has never seem to be a problem as cleanmem needs VERY little.

Cleanmem opens, loads the txt files, loops through the process list and runs the api call on each or by how ever the user has their settings, records any logs if set, and closes itself. happens all very fast.

Perhaps it would be better to just have cleanmem set to run in a low cpu priority instead? Thoughts?

Shane

[Eli]

smc1979, on 07 January 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

Thats what is hard to tell. Last night was playing Battlefield 2 Vietnam with some friends.
I gave them all a test exe that would run cleanmem when they hit the "T" key on their keyboard. As we where all in game I had them all run cleanmem during a firefight and none of them felt any hicups or anything. (They all now love cleanmem lol)

I have dual monitors, I had the mini monitor on the 2nd screen. While playing I ran cleanmem and 400 mb of memory where freed from the game and it didn't skip a beat. the game would slowly climb back up, but I have cleanmem running every 15 min on my system. (I also have 8gb of ram and my page file disabled)

They did not have their page file disabled, and we all have pretty high end gaming rigs. (So not sure how good of a test this would be vs older systems, but this is while playing a game after all)

CPU has never seem to be a problem as cleanmem needs VERY little.

Cleanmem opens, loads the txt files, loops through the process list and runs the api call on each or by how ever the user has their settings, records any logs if set, and closes itself. happens all very fast.

Perhaps it would be better to just have cleanmem set to run in a low cpu priority instead? Thoughts?

Shane

I`d put is as an option,not by default,but then again you are going to get a lot of users questions....:-)

[smc1979]

Eli, on 07 January 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

I`d put is as an option,not by default,but then you are going to get a lot of users questions....:-)

For now, personally I don't think a cpu option is needed. But just because I think that doesn't mean I am right. If anyone else requests it I will add it ;-)

Shane

[Willy2]

These are my personal thoughts concerning CM 1.65:

Yes, I certainly would welcome a GUI for the CM settings. Personally, I would reduce drasticly/significantly the number of options concerning the appearence (like e.g. color options) of the mini monitor and put more emphasis and priority on a relatively simple and straightforward GUI for the basic settings like the:
-- ignore list
-- log settings list
-- only list
-- file chache
-- automatically start upon Windows start up
(But isn't this a discussion that should take place at the PcWinTech.com forum ???)

Remember the KISS (Keep It Simple St***d) principle ??

[smc1979]

Willy2, on 07 January 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

These are my personal thoughts concerning CM 1.65:

Yes, I certainly would welcome a GUI for the CM settings. Personally, I would reduce drasticly/significantly the number of options concerning the appearence (like e.g. color options) of the mini monitor and put more emphasis and priority on a relatively simple and straightforward GUI for the basic settings like the:
-- ignore list
-- log settings list
-- only list
-- file chache
-- automatically start upon Windows start up
(But isn't this a discussion that should take place at the PcWinTech.com forum ???)

Remember the KISS (Keep It Simple St***d) principle ??

Your right this should be over in my forums. Didn't mean to hijack the thread :-)

I wanted feedback more than traffic :-)

I wont be removing any of the current settings. Almost all those settings I used from my Simple Internet Meter, and all of those where by user request. So the cleanmem mini monitor is all by user request of what is in there.
If I make the settings gui it will be a exe by itself as well.

Anyways I wont keep taking up space here, and I will try to have an update out in the next day or so :-D

Take care!
Shane

[kroozer]

Eli, on 07 January 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

A suggested change:Set a level of CPU activity to delay cleanmem cheduled task when CPU is very busy.

To prevent that interference I disabled autorun in Task Scheduler and run CM 151 manually during idle. Simple and easy to use -- I'm contented without GUI and monitor.

I have a single core Celeron 440 and 2GB RAM.