# Incorrect amount of RAM available - Windows 2008 Server



## Eneg1 (Jun 29, 2011)

Hi all!

I recently purchased a system by HP that stated support of up to 16GB RAM - which is the primary purpose for my purchase.

I upgraded the system to 16GB RAM, wiped the drive and installed Windows Server 2008 Enterprise 64-bit. CMOS does properly report 4 - 4096MB chips with a total physical memory of 16GB, Windows reports 16GB RAM when I view Properties of My Computer and MSInfo32.exe reports 16GB RAM.

MSInfo32 Report:
Installed Physical Memory (RAM): 16.0 GB
Total Physical Memory: 7.75 GB
Available Physical Memory: 6.87 GB

Task Manager --> Performance: Reports 7934MB Total Physical Memory

Obviously I upgraded to 16GB so I could make use of say 16GB RAM, not half that. 

Specs:
CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 840T, 2.90Ghz, Quad Core
HP System Model: p7-1039
RAM: 16GB
System Type: 64-bit
OS: Windows Server 2008 Enterprise, 64-bit

Any ideas or recommendations on how to get Windows to access all 16GB?

Cheers,
Eneg


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

Is it the correct and supported RAM per HP compatibility?


----------



## Eneg1 (Jun 29, 2011)

They didn't have any restrictions, just as long as it matched the existing sticks: DDR3 PC3-10600.

I've been doing some more testing with and just found that it has 8449MB dedicated to hardware resources. No options in the BIOS permit me to change this. If I remove the 2 sticks of RAM I put in, then it changes to 257MB dedicated to hardware resources.

So, for the heck of it, I rotated the 2 sets of chips but got the same results. 

So, if I use 2 sticks, I get 257MB dedicated to hardware resources. If I use 4 sticks, I get 8449MB dedicated to hardware resources. So either way, I have basically the same amount of available RAM - 8GB.

Ideas?


----------



## Rockn (Jul 29, 2001)

I would contact HP before asking a support forum.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Windows sometimes uses strange calculations to determine how much system RAM is devoted to graphics. 

But if you watch your RAM usage, you will find that the system will never use more than maybe 3 GB's in any case no matter how much you install, even on a server with cache set high and memory usage maximized through fsutil. That much RAM is likely to slow things down considerably, booting time will increase, and things like hibernation will take considerably longer. Some boards use an alternative, slower addressing scheme for large amounts of RAM.

About the only way you can achieve any benefit from that much RAM is with the judicious use of RAMdisks to speed some processes. Otherwise, that much RAM will sit using power, creating heat, and not be used for much of anything.

Adding RAM is not always a good idea like it was when we had 32 MB's.


----------



## Eneg1 (Jun 29, 2011)

Believe it or not, I actually intended to use it - for VMs that I would be actively using for work (though it's a personal system). Otherwise I agree - that much RAM, especially for home use is rather wasteful.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Eneg1 said:


> Believe it or not, I actually intended to use it - for VMs that I would be actively using for work (though it's a personal system). Otherwise I agree - that much RAM, especially for home use is rather wasteful.


Ah, yes. I forgot VM's. Very useful for that. And putting a page file in a RAMdisk is also a good idea (It may seem counterintuitive, but some programs use paging by design and don't run optimally without it, so having it in RAM just speeds it up). I'm using 12 GB's now, down from 24 since I really had no use for 24 even with VM's (It seemed like it took 10 minutes to boot, and hibernation was, well, awful). But you are quite right that there are uses for it and you seem to know what you are doing. 

Check msconfig to be sure no maxmem has been set there.


----------



## Eneg1 (Jun 29, 2011)

Thanks!

Yeah, I checked msconfig for that...I even took it one huuuuge step further and wiped the drive (again) and installed Win7 Enterprise 64-bit just to rule out any type of MB incompatibility with Windows Server 2008. Same exact results. lol


----------

