System Cache in Windows Task Manager

  CurlyWhirly 17:11 03 Nov 04

Hi. I am curious as to what System Cache is in the Performance tab of Windows Task Manager?
I have done a Google but nothing comes up that explains exactly what it is?
I am wondering why System Cache total is ALWAYS larger than the Commit Charge total i.e. the amount of RAM in use at any one time.

  CurlyWhirly 21:18 03 Nov 04


  iambeavis 21:34 03 Nov 04

This is for 2000 but it's much the same whatever the OS, I would imagine. - click here

  CurlyWhirly 21:40 03 Nov 04

Thanks. It is a bit complicated but I think that the article is saying that any memory released back to the operating system (by closing down programs) is STILL counted in the System Cache total or have I got it wrong?

  iambeavis 21:50 03 Nov 04

I don't know. It's not something I've ever needed to know so I haven't bothered to read up on it. Slam in plenty of RAM - the system cache probably becomes irrelevant then, but then, I don't know about that either.

  CurlyWhirly 22:20 03 Nov 04

Slam in plenty of RAM - the system cache probably becomes irrelevant then.

Hi. I am wondering what it is because as time goes on the System Cache becomes larger and larger until after say 2 hours (without a reboot) it is around the 700 Mb region and I only have around 300 Mb free out of 1 Gb.
In this example I only have a Commit Charge of around 400 Mb meaning around 600 Mb is free.
The 2 figures don't seem to add up still like you said not to worry!

  CurlyWhirly 23:08 03 Nov 04

I understand it a bit better now after reading the Help file but I am still not sure why the System Cache appears to rise and rise until after a number of hours it is nearly at the limit of physical RAM?
This is despite running the same number of programs, applications like for example surfing the internet.

  CurlyWhirly 23:24 03 Nov 04

I will certainly give your link a try tomorrow!

  CurlyWhirly 23:45 03 Nov 04

No I don't really notice any slow down when the System Cache rises but I am just curious WHY it happems!

  iambeavis 10:39 04 Nov 04

In another thread, on this forum - click here
I've advised someone else against using any form of Memory Manager as they create their own drain on system resource. I was refering to using them with XP which is more than capable of deciding how the memory should be allocated within the system. I agree with crx1600 that 98 (I don't know about ME) is a different matter and, when I was running 98, I found Cacheman, among others, to be almost an essential, particularly when using programmes such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. At that time, in my efforts to manage the computers memory more efficiently, I visited a few sites and on one of them I found an explanation of the System Cache - unfortunately, it was a long time ago now and I can't remember where the site was but I can remember that the gist of the article was sufficient to make me think that the System Cache was not mine to worry about. As I said in a previous post "slam in the RAM", XP will love you for it - I have 768Mb in mine (rendering large PSD and tiffs in Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro) and I've never had a complaint from the OS, yet (let's hope it stays that way). I would agree, very much, with crx1600's post of 01:18. Good luck.

  CurlyWhirly 19:53 04 Nov 04

I have taken your advice and not bothered with Cacheman. Thanks.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Nintendo Switch review: Hands-on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

This abstract video touches on division in our technologic world

Best alternatives to iTunes for Mac | Best music players for macOS: Free your music from the…