Slashdot Mirror
Swap File Optimizations?
fastswap asks: "I've got a pretty standard computer with reasonably fast drives. I've got an old 2GB-but-fast drive, and a spare channel on the motherboard. Does it make sense to install the 2GB drive on its own controller and use it for a dedicated, fixed swap file? I figure if the computer's using the swap file, then in the current setup with the swap file on the primary controller, then it's contributing to hard drive thrash exactly when one doesn't want it to (i.e. when the machine needs the swap file). If it is better to have a dedicated swap file on its own controller, is the same true for other operating systems with similar approaches to virtual memory? Since drive space is so cheap now, should the swap file be fixed size anyway rather than letting Windows suddenly get the urge to resize the thing?"
results when using fixed swap size. as far as a dedicated controller and drive for swap.... that i dont know.
Swap file? Modern operating systems use a page file. Get out of your Loonix mind set, hippie.
Do people still swap? Seriously, I can't remember when I heard my prime dueller do the rumble, and its only got 512 megs of ram.
The general advice that I've picked up is that, at least in the *n?x world, you should create a swap partition which is double the size of the machine's physical RAM. For example, if you're sitting on 512MB of RAM, a 1GB swap partition is appropriate.
You only mention Windows towards the end of your question so I can't tell whether or not you're looking for a Windows answer. I've always allowed Windows to resize its swap file, but within a small window. This machine (Win2K) has 640 megs of physical RAM, and the swap file is set at 1280 minimum, 1960 maximum; that gives Windows "double the real RAM," but not a license to take over the whole drive. Seems to work well for me.
I've never tried putting the swap on its own channel or controller - or even on its own drive - under any OS. Like you, I'd be interested in hearing whether or not this is worth the trouble.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
It is better
You had me interested until you mentioned that this was for Windows. Yuck.
My experience has always been to give windows a fixed page file, at twice the RAM size (ie. 512MB RAM so 1024MB page file). Further, a separate physical drive is the best scenario, or second best is a separate partition.
It is important to note that WindowsXP will use the page file whether you've got plenty of RAM or not.
I've done this under linux, say get a 2-6GB drive and use it as dedicated swap. I tend to do this with scsi servers when I'm patching together old gear. Say an 18GB root drive and then the smaller drive as dedicated swap. leaves everything open. And if the swap drive does get thrashed, no big deal. It's quite effective and works well in my experience.
why does the porridge bird lay his eggs in the air?
Dedicated is better.
However, you will never get true swap performance using Windows.
To do that you need a real operating system. Linux will let you put one swap partition on each controller, set them to the same priority, and it will automatically spread the access between them, getting a RAID-like speedup in your swap access times.
Also, remember to put swap partitions (if you are using files you are hopelessly fucked) on the end of the disk, so that they will be on the outer sectors where the transfer rate is fastest.
This Linux Mini-HOWTO might be of interrested to some /.ers, it describes how to share your Linux swap partition with Windows.
-- search the web
I too am in a similar environment as yourself. I took it one step further, and also setup the temp variables to use the same drive.
I've noticed significant performance increases since doing, not to mention that I've freed up some space on other, more important drives.
Good luck!
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
An old, surplus, dedicated swap drive on its own channel: $0.00
A RAMdrive from system memory: Under $100
A solid state disk drive you shove into a PCI slot with a bunch of SDRAM on it: Priceless
For everything else, there's, Hey! Why would I pay more than a grand for a PCI bandwidth capped solid state drive when I can fill my memory slots and use RAMDrive at DDR bandwidth?
Here come da fudge!
First, if this is a workstation for one person, not an application server, then you are not likely to feel performance is acceptable when paging does happen, regardless of the device where swap resides. Just because your OS installer insists that you allocate swap space doesn't mean you should use it often.
Second, transfer rates have increased about ten-fold since that drive was manufactured. (Access times haven't.) While it is ideal to have swap space on its own spindle and controller, it doesn't make much sense to optimize details like that but use such a slow disk.
Just make a swap file on your system disk and forget about it. If the rest of the machine is new, it should have enough physical memory that swap is mostly irrelevant.
Java: the COBOL of the new millenium.
From Windows XP back to Windows 95, gurus have suggested a fixed size of 2 or 2.5 times the size of your RAM. I keep it at 3 times, because I have CRS disease and can't remember the exact size. Better safe than sorry, since I have the room.
Swapping on a separate drive is faster than swapping on the same drive. I've tested that. I also put the "temp" directories on the separate drive, as well as the data directories for my applications. This includeds the mailbox for Outlook Express and the temporary internet files for Internet Explorer.
There's a big bonus to setting up like this, besides performance. There's less to backup from C: drive!
[Contrary to popular belief, not all nerds and geeks use OSS.]
-- There is no spoon. Only fork.
Like you I'm also not sure if it makes much difference but my system certainly seems to often be swap limited. I currently have KDE3, several gnome apps, a browsers with 4 windows (20+tabs), 2 virtual desktops, and I often use octave to process high resolution images. Changing from one app to another can cause the machine to swap for a few seconds if I've haven't used the first app in a few hours/days.
Elivs
Clearly if I used windows I wouldn't have these problems as I could never leave apps idle for days while doing another task.
/me Ducks as an "MS wireless mouse" flies towards me...
- If you're planning on spending any money on this, it would be better off going towards more RAM.
- If the drive isn't as fast as your primary HD, it may not be as good a deal as you might think. Remember that the non-DMA access modes used by older IDE drives, can eat up your CPU and thus any performance gain. Of course, this isn't an issue with SCSI if that's what you're using.
- If you use an app that has its own scratchpad requirements, you might want to put that on the drive rather than your Windows swapfile. Photoshop comes to mind immediately as an example of where this would be a good thing; it might also be good for dumping processed video onto (although if you're doing major video work, you should have a fast, preferably RAID-0, scratchspace, along with more reliable storage).
As far as a fixed-size swapfile, it should help some in Windows; when you defrag, it will help to keep your swapfile coherent as much as possible. Of course, if the swapfile is the only thing on the drive, it won't matter too much. If you do go for a fixed size file, make sure to make it larger than you ever think you'll need - it sucks to run out of memory when you're doing a lengthy, complex operation. One rule of thumb (not as valid these days) is to set your swap to 2x your physical memory. Another, which I use, is to simply take the most memory you'll ever think you'll use and then add a 50% safety factor. Remember to resize this if you ever start working with really large stuff - high-res video, 3000 x 3000 pixel Photoshop images, etc.Finally, remember that idealy, you never want to hit swap at all. If you're experiencing problems with thrashing, you should probably either pare down your system (do you really need to run that IM program all the time? all those systray utilities you never use?) or simply bite the bullet and get more RAM. Even the fastest hard drive can't touch RAM for speed, and seeing your system hit the pagefile for routine tasks means it's time to put a new stick of RAM into the beast.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
If security is a concern, set Windows to use a fixed swap size, i.e. the minumum and maximum values should be identical. Then, install Eraser (GPL), which offers the ability to wipe the swap file during the reboot process.
Another thing to consider: why is your machine thrashing? If what you're working with can't fit in RAM, then that's likely your real problem, not how efficiently you implement a swap file/partition. Compared to RAM, hard drive access is glacially slow, regardless of how you set things up.
Most operating systems today should be able to deal with swap files/partitions with reasonable performance, without you having to go to great lengths to optimize things. So probably the "default setup" (whatever that may be) will be fine, unless you really need that last ounce of performance.
You don't specify how much RAM your system has, nor how much you actually use your swap space.
If you really hit your swap hard, then I guess installing a dedicated swap drive would make sense. Of course, so would upgrading your RAM, which would have a much more positive impact on your system's performance, and without the additional heat, noise, and power consumption that adding another drive would.
As another poster mentioned, the rule of thumb is to have twice as much swap as physical ram. Personally, I think that's outmoded, and I don't see the point in even having a swap partition equal in size to a system's physical ram. I have 512mb in my desktop box, and I rarely hit my swap. Right now, I'm running a slew of apps, and I've only hit 5mb of swap.
In short, it may be an interesting exercise, but it's probably not worth it.
Generally according to the "Microsoft" way of doing things, you always want to seperate your system partition and your swap file. Hence if your OS is installed on your C: drive (be it the RAID array or your ATA drive) you should put the swap file on the other drive (d: or what have you). But in your case , I would be more tempted to put a smaller swap file (say about 2-300 MB on the raid partition, whichever that is) and make sure it is limited. Try it out for a while and if your programs are claiming they are running out of memory, switch to a larger or non-limited swap file.
I'm generally not attracted to men, but my God something about Hitler just drives me absolutely batty! That dramatic sweep of hair across his brow, like he just tossed his head and there it fell, a cascade of black like the velvet curtain of night. I want him to take me on the hood of a King Tiger, its 1400 horsepower engine revving as he violates the virginal secrets of my Eagle's Nest. I picture it like those glorious mass rallies the Nazis used to have. There he is lovingly pounding away at my second front while legions of goose-stepping Aryans march past and salute our union. Just as Hitler is about to empty his tiny ubermenschen into the expanse of my Liebe-raum a wing of Stukas will fly overhead, their sirens howling in synchronicity with the primal cries of pleasure from Der Fuehrer. My god, what a man!
Basically what I'm saying is if your RAID partition does not host your operating system it is very recommendable to put a swap file there as there will be less activity from the OS and swap file conflicting with each other, resulting in faster performance and paging.
BTW have you tried running with out a swap file?
Because not only will you get to play with antiquated technology, (yeah... 2GB is antiquated now.) but you get not one but two slashdot articles out of it!
Just remember, you have all your time to avoid the slashdot effect, so you better have mirrors, boy. There ain't no excuse!
Duh. This is classic old school system architecture. Better yet - place your swap file on a separate striped array on your 2nd PCI bus. So there.
Man, that was a good troll. Short, but sweet.
Does it make sense to install the 2GB drive on its own controller and use it for a dedicated, fixed swap file?
Yes.
... you need a separate swap partition for each drive you've got, not for the whole system. This maybe, however, a bit of BSDism -- that's the land I've been living in lately.
Also, has "128Mb swap limit" been surpassed in Lunix-land? Will you really be able to use whole 2Gb as a single partition or you'd have to split it up, ugh, 16 ways?
Lastly -- on my BSD boxes even with X and mozilla running swap usage would tend to be minimal, unless I am doing something really big on top of that (like running KDE with a bunch of apps together with a buildworld or a portupgrade -rRf x11/kde3)
--AP
Just my 2c: I used to own a machine with limited RAM but with two HDDs. I split swap on dedicated partitions on both drives with the same priority (in Linux, I don't know if Windows can do this) and when I needed to swap, the performance increase was huge.
Yesterday was the time to do it right. Are we having a REVOLUTION yet?
Okay, so this is too late for all but the most sad of slashdotters to read it, but here goes:
If the drive is 2GB, then don't be so sure that it is fast - it may have been when it was bought, but that was 6 or so years ago at least. I would be very suprised indeed to see more than 4-5MB/s sustained read and 2-3 write; there have been a lot of advances in the last few years.
My current setup (1GB physical RAM) has 2GB set aside for each of Win2k and Linux in seperate partitions right in the middle (this will speed up average access times as the heads will have the least far to travel on average from any random point over the platters) of the raid array (and hench middle of both disks, as it is RAID-0), which I know to be fast - benchmarking has pegged it at greater than 110MB/s sustained. Windows will hit the swapfile no matter what (just try setting the swap to 0, even on a well-heeled system, and watch it complain at bootup/logon), so it gets 512MB to play with just at bootup and can go all the way to the end of it's swap partition if it wants. Linux, well, that's another story (currently support for the raid array is patchy, so not running linux - the partitions are still there, though, waiting for filsystems!), but as everybody knows, linux is very aggressive about swapping stuff out and using physical RAM as a disk cache, so again I expect it to hit the swapfile after a few days (hours?) running, but be perfectly happy with 2GB.
You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...
The last time I set up Windows on my Pee Cee (1996 IIRC) it would swap stuff out to disk because of 64k segment limitations. I think it was when it had too many icons, or the colour depth was too great. You used to have to install the DOS disk cache program to try to cache the stuff in high memory that Windows insisted on swapping out to disk, even though the system maybe had 16 or 32 megabytes of RAM. I find it hard to believe they haven't fixed this yet. Maybe they have? Is that why the speed of your swap partition is so critical?
Stick Men
If thrashing is causing degradation, I would seriously consider increasing RAM before improving on the swap drive.
Check the performance specs for that 2gig drive first. If you are connecting an older, slower drive, you may actually worsen performance. For best performance, use a drive that can supports whatever performance features your mobo offers ( UDMA-66, Serial ATA, etc... )
IF using Windows 2000/XP you can spread your page file accross multiple hard drives.
X
Putting swap in a RAM disk makes no sense what-so-ever.
You're suggesting Dave Cutler isn't competent?
No, but he's wearing the Lead Boots of Bill Gates. They've slowed him down a bit.
I've always gone for the extra channels when I'm buying a motherboard. Windows and apps live on one drive, swap/temp files and data on the other.
Real world experience - Rally Championship 2000 - swap file on the same drive as the game - loading times were long - 30 seconds or more. The indicator bar would move for a bit, stop for a bit, move for a bit, stop for a bit...
Change the swap file to the other drive and the level loading time went away. 18 seconds.
And the progress indicator keeps moving all the way with no pauses.
Think of it as the difference between having to do everything one handed (read this bit off the drive, track all the way across the platter to the swap file, write that bit there, track all the way back across the platter for the nexct bit of reading, etc, etc, etc), and having two hands (read with the right, write with the left)
...is that MS Windows is not a modern operating system. It got a shot in the arm as a reincarnated MICA (VMS 5+) but Microsoft managed to hobble even that.
Swap partitions are even faster, but MS Windows can't do those.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
..is to put the swap on a drive other than the OS (not just a different partition), and on a different channel. I've also heard to put the swap start/stop at the same size (so its not fighting the filesystem for space) and to have the size be 2.5 to 3 times the amount of physical RAM installed.
If you're running Windows NT/2000/XP, make the partition in question NTFS too.
I'm running XP Pro with 512MB of PC2100 and have my swap start/stop at 2GB (ok, 4x my RAM) on an NTFS partition. The little trashing I do have is because that partition also contains game files and downloads from bittorrent.
I imagine if you're using a 2GB drive solely for swap and nothing else, you may not have any thrashing at all.
How reliable is that 2GB drive though? I guess it doesn't really matter, cause if the drive fails, the OS should move the swapfile back to the default location.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I've got a pretty standard computer with reasonably fast drives.
So you don't need to do anything. Leave it alone. You're not going to notice an ounce of difference. All you'll be getting is the extra noise and heat of another hard drive, which will be rarely, if ever, be getting accessed. No need to do it.
> If it is better to have a dedicated swap file on its own controller?
I had this setup a few years ago on a machine with 128 MB of RAM. It was definitely faster.
One tip: if the paging file is on a separate disk, Windows may not be able to boot if that drive is disconnected. The solution is to also keep a small paging file on the boot disk, just in case. I recommend testing it by disconnecting the second drive and seeing if it still boots.
I created a six-Gig partion on my second internal hard drive for this problem.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Most versions of Windows support a maximum of 4GB address space, so if you have 4GB of RAM you can't also have a swap file! Zero paging is achived!
I guess the same goes for most other systems out there. Add enough cheap RAM and you are away.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Putting more ram in the machine instead of adding another power consuming hard drive will give you a much better performance boost.
Depends on your PC and what you do with it. Putting the swapfile on the outside edge of the fastest disk that does *not* have Windows on it is generally the best idea. If you're concerned about dissimilar PIO or UDMA transfer rates, if your IDE controller supports multiple media transfer rates (most IDE controllers built after about 1998 do) you don't have anything to worry about. There's no reason I can think of to have multiple pagefiles on a Windows machine unless it's a server or you're heavily into A/V.
Re size of the paging file: A static swapfile is always going to perform better than a dynamic one - provided the static file is big enough. Here's whatcha do -
Use Performance Monitor to measure swapfile use over a week or two. You'll be able to tell exactly how much paging file you need from that. Take a couple hundred MB onto that number just for grins and make it a static pagefile.
Paging to disk is always slower than using real memory - but some applications (one of them being Internet Explorer) *require* a swapfile. My XP box is a dual processor 1GHz machine with 384mb of memory. It's usually just used for surfing the web and a bit of word processing, but I've never seen more than about 10% of its 768mb static pagefile in use.
Hope this helps -
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I've seen several comments here that basically assert that people are running their computers with 512 MB or even 256 MB of RAM and not swapping.
I don't know how they do it.
I work for a newspaper. I have a Power Mac G5 on my desk with a gigabyte of RAM in it. I run Mail, Safari, iChat, InDesign, InCopy, Photoshop, Illustrator, Suitcase, Acrobat, and Distiller all the time, and my machine swaps constantly. (Okay, I guess keeping iTunes going in the background doesn't exactly help, but how can you work without music? That's like trying to work in the dark, or without a chair.)
G5 RAM (DDR 400, in other words) is getting pretty cheap. I may plop down a couple hundred dollars of my own money to add another gig to my machine. God knows I could use it.
...the electricity that you'll spend over the years on having this extra hard drive that does essentially nothing, yet remains spinning at all times because it's always being accessed, then yeah, go for it.
Otherwise, forget about it and realize that the cumulative extra two seconds you spend each day because your primary drives are so bogged down by accessing your swap partition are worth not only the money you save by not wasting electricity but also worth making the world that much nicer by not creating an energy drain.
Im talking about Windows. Regardless of the amount of RAM you have on your system, it will still use your page file. Also, if you try disabling the pagefile and restart the OS, it will automatically create a page file on 'C:' or wherever you installed it. Linux barely touches my swap even with X running and 5 - 10 GUI progs open (512MB RAM). Windows however refuses to leave the damn page file alone Currently im running a total of 33 processes on WinXP (on all visual disabled) and its using 202MB of swap, and 300MB out of 512MB of RAM is still available....Ridiculous
Why do so many people keep saying "twice the physical RAM?" Can anyone really provide technical justification for it? Sure, it's not like we're generally hurting to set up a 1 GB paging file on a 120 GB drive, but as far as I can tell it's futile.
Having a paging file does not increase performance! How can it? It's there to let programs allocate more 'memory' than physically exists in the machine, but if you're doing that regularly performance will suck. Badly. The more of the paging file is used, the more time you spend waiting for data to be read from the disk (slow) instead of RAM (fast). This is not the stuff of good interactive response!
If you must, create a huge paging file, run your favourite programs for a few days without restarting the machine, and see how much of the paging file was actually used. Then reduce your paging file to that size, plus a margin for error. That's enough.
I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
While I'm sure many of the suggestions here will give you a good increase in speed, I feel I should also recommend RAID. I've found that putting your swap on a small RAID 0 (a few gigs) is a great way to increase your throughput.
Two older drives shouldn't have too much difficulty utilizing the available bandwidth of your PCI bus, and even a cheap ATA66 RAID controller should work as 66 MB/sec is the limit for each channel.
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
separate drives, esp. on a separate channel or controller, will always help.
but if you're dealing with xp, you can also gain some speed by NOT using ntfs on that drive. instead, use fat32- your swap file is not a file that needs full ntfs (permission or security or compression or encryption) complexity.
combine that with a fixed size, from the word go, and you can get very nice speed bumps.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Putting an old and usable hard disk back into service is a good thing. As has been said set paging file (swap) to twice RAM. However consider, repointing all temp folders (system, and your programs, especially web browsers) so that all transitory acitivity is on this hard disk as well. So if all you have is 2GB hard disk, maybe sway at 1.3 GB and 0.7 GB for temp folders is not a bad idea. To make you swap efficient it should be fixed. But more importantly you more effectively control fragmentation. Also. Have you maxed out you RAM - in so far as off-the-shelf boards have RAM capacity crippled to 2-3GB generally (it ain't no server board) and with RAM so cheap, IMHO every board should be at max RAM.
The RAM is like a window into the data on the swap file. So, at some point, the area the RAM can see is so small that swapping will become excessive, and thus make the computer unworkable. The 2xRAM is mostly an experience based rule for the limit to when adding more swap space no longer helps things. Note that the rule is quite old, and may need updating (though I still use it: 512Mb RAM->1Gb swap partition.). It is also an old hardcoded requirement for early linux, I believe, though that is of mostly historical interest.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
If you've got to swap, then yes, a separate drive to use for swapping is the way to go. It will prevent thrashing between your swap partition and your main partition when working with large executables or large blocks of data. You'd still be better off, however, by blowing some cash to get 2 gigs of RAM and disable swapping entirely.
to some extent, yes, but I've seen improved app launch times from 'defragging' my reiserfs '/' partition (tar the files, reformat, untar to same place). This leads me to believe that there is, in fact, a structured 'closest to the top' file placement scheme in reiserfs. in any case, having the swap as a file inside '/' as opposed to a partition far away on either side of it seems optimal in 2.6, given that you only have one drive to work with.
Even with multiple drives, running swap and '/' on the fast one might be advantageous, my drive has an 8MB buffer, and most writes to swap are much smaller than that, while an old 2GB drive likely has only a 512K buffer. If there's 4MB that the kernel wants to page out it'll go at 'wire speed' to the bigger drive, while the older 'dedicated' drive might have to swallow it in chunks as it commits.
The real question is why should we worry about swap optimization AT ALL. I've got a 320MB system and it's never used more than 15MB of swap, and the activity on the swap was absolutely minimal. My 'bigger' systems almost never page out. You're much better off just making a smallish swapfile inside your filesystem and not having to deal with any more partitions than you need, the small amount of sanity this affords you should greatly outweigh the 'half-second over three weeks' of difference it makes in performance.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
You don't seem to have much of a clue. Modern programs do not load entirely into RAM. Instead, only the portions of the program that are actually needed are loaded into RAM. So if you aren't using the spell check feature, it won't cost you any RAM, just disk space. This is done primarily with DLLs / shared libraries, but the paging system of most modern OSes is lazy -- even for the base program, it only loads what is needed.
So assuming there were something as large as a 100 MB Easter egg, it wouldn't take up much memory until you found it.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
[Contrary to popular belief, not all nerds and geeks use OSS.]
I see nothing in your post to indicate "nerd" or "geek". The fact that you have so little RAM that you'd hit the swap file at all lowers your nerd factor quite a bit. Add this to that the fact that not only do you repeat old advice about swapfile:RAM ratios but you INCREASE it. Yow. Is that you, dad?!
I got to:
..."
"Start Windows. Go to the Control Panel, select "386 Enhanced". Select "Virtual Memory" and
and prompty began to feel woozy. If anyone sees me heading for the floor, please run to catch me!
Seriously... this takes me back...
-Pete
I have plenty of clue and I'm fully aware of DLL's/shared libraries and all the jazz that modern OS's do. Please note, however, the whole "BillG naked, pile of money and whores" thing. That *was* an attempt at humour - and who lets the mere truth get in the way of a good joke these days, hey?
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
> This is done primarily with DLLs / shared libraries
Yep
C:\>tlist winword
1052 WINWORD.EXE Document1 - Microsoft Word
CWD: C:\
CmdLine: "C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\Office10\WINWORD.EXE"
VirtualSize: 62032 KB PeakVirtualSize: 63120 KB
WorkingSetSize: 7452 KB PeakWorkingSetSize: 7748 KB
NumberOfThreads: 2
1732 Win32StartAddr:0x300018f4 LastErr:0x00000000 State:Waiting
1648 Win32StartAddr:0x780015dd LastErr:0x00000000 State:Waiting
10.0.5815.0 shp 0x30000000 C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\Office10\WINWORD.EXE
5.1.2600.1217 shp 0x77F50000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\ntdll.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x77E60000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\kernel32.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x77DD0000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\ADVAPI32.DLL
5.1.2600.1254 shp 0x78000000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\RPCRT4.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x77C70000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\GDI32.DLL
5.1.2600.1255 shp 0x77D40000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\USER32.dll
5.1.2600.1263 shp 0x771B0000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\OLE32.DLL
10.0.4219.0 shp 0x30B00000 C:\PROGRA~1\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\offic
e10\mso.dll
6.0.2800.1106 shp 0x5AD70000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\uxtheme.dll
7.0.2600.1106 shp 0x77C10000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\msvcrt.dll
6.0.2800.1233 shp 0x773D0000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\SHELL32.dll
6.0.2800.1400 shp 0x70A70000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\SHLWAPI.dll
6.0.2800.1106 shp 0x71950000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\comctl32.dll
2001.12.4414.42 sh 0x76FD0000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\CLBCATQ.DLL
3.50.5016.0 shp 0x77120000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\OLEAUT32.dll
2001.12.4414.42 sh 0x77050000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\COMRes.dll
5.1.2600.0 shp 0x77C00000 C:\WINDOWS\system32\VERSION.dll
2.0.2600.1106 shp 0x76400000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\msi.dll
5.40.11.2210 shp 0x48000000 C:\PROGRA~1\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\offic
e10\riched20.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x75E90000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\SXS.DLL
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x76F50000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\wtsapi32.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x76360000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\WINSTA.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x76670000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\SETUPAPI.dll
5.1.2600.1106 shp 0x73000000 C:\WINDOWS\System32\winspool.drv