Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger Backspacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Scappoose
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    How many hard faults are too many?

    I know what a hard fault is: a piece of code is not in RAM and must be retrieved from virtual. What I want to know is: how many hard faults per second are too many?

    I Googled until my fingertips were bruised. I could fill an entire hard drive with the same explanations of what a hard fault is, over and over in varying levels of detail. Even Microsoft's Technet does it. In fact, they even say "A consistently high number of hard faults per second indicates" problems. But they don't say how many is too many. What is "consistently high"?

    It seems like the kind of thing that might vary between 32 bit and 64 bit operating systems, but not from one system to the next. The number of hard faults per second that I see will vary greatly from system to the next, but the number that is "too much" should be pretty consistent. I imagine that a 64 bit PC with 2 Gb of RAM is going to have a lot of them and the same PC with 128Gb will have very few. And the former is going to perform worse than the latter. But the actual number per second seems like it would be pretty directly related to the user experience of system performance.

    So how many is too many?

  2. #2
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,846
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 253 Times in 238 Posts
    There is no specific number, it's just indicative of insufficient memory. The hard disk type also affects what sort of performance hit you see, an SSD will obviously perform better than a mechanical disk.

    cheers, Paul

  3. #3
    3 Star Lounger Backspacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Scappoose
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Well they sure give it a prominent place in the Resource Monitor for such a useless number. That article also suggests that one way to see if you are getting too many hard faults is to keep opening and using more and more programs until performance suffers. Then, depending on how realistic that load is, you decide whether you need more memory or not. Heck, that's what I've been doing for 25 years. And what I'll do now.

    Oh, about the SSD: I was hearing endless complaints about one of the systems in our store being tediously slow to use. It seemed to be more disk access related and so I put in an SSD. Problem solved and I've had not even a hint of a complaint since then. It was an Intel SSD; very nice, reliability figures way higher than any spinning platter drive. An easy swap, too. I liked it so much that when I built my almost really awesome desktop I didn't even have to think about what I was going to use for the C drive. I still keep my data on a Velociraptor.

  4. #4
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,846
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 253 Times in 238 Posts
    Maybe your store PC had too many hard faults?

    cheers, Paul

  5. #5
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    88
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
    You've kind of answered your own question. When you say "It seemed to be more disk access related" about the tediously slow system, you have eliminated memory shortage, CPU shortage, network congestion, etc. The prominent entries in Resource Monitor are tools to help you narrow down performance problems to specific areas that you can address. In that context, they are useful. Outside that context (such as wondering how many are too many) I agree that they are well, just fun to watch.

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger Backspacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Scappoose
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul T View Post
    Maybe your store PC had too many hard faults?
    Actually, I sheepishly thought the same thing. Then I remembered that this system does a lot of disk intensive stuff and I watched the disk activity in the Resource Monitor and decided that was the problem. But you raise a good point. I really should take a look at hard faults on this system, just to keep an eye on it. It's a wimpy little system that we ask a lot of.

  7. #7
    3 Star Lounger Backspacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Scappoose
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by riffraff View Post
    You've kind of answered your own question. When you say "It seemed to be more disk access related" about the tediously slow system, you have eliminated memory shortage, CPU shortage, network congestion, etc. The prominent entries in Resource Monitor are tools to help you narrow down performance problems to specific areas that you can address. In that context, they are useful. Outside that context (such as wondering how many are too many) I agree that they are well, just fun to watch.
    That was a different system than the current one. My original question remains unanswered, but probably because there is no answer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •