Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 855083
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T08:01:28+00:00 2026-05-15T08:01:28+00:00

OK, this may sound weird, but here goes. There are 2 computers, A (Pentium

  • 0

OK, this may sound weird, but here goes.

There are 2 computers, A (Pentium D) and B (Quad Core) with almost the same amount of RAM running Windows XP.

If I run the same code on both computers, the allocated private bytes in A never goes down resulting in a crash later on. In B it looks like the private bytes is constantly deallocated and everything looks fine.

In both computers, the working set is deallocated and allocated similarly.

Could this be an issue with manifests or DLLs (system)? I’m clueless.

Also, I compiled the executable on A and ran it on B and it worked.

Note:

I observed the utilized memory with Process Explorer.

Question:

During execution (where we have several allocations and deallocations) is it normal for the number of private bytes to be much bigger (1.5 GB vs 70 MB) than the working set?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T08:01:29+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 8:01 am

    The fact that a memory leak (increasing private bytes) doesn’t have an effect on working set is no surprise. The working set size is determined by the number of memory pages the application has touched recently. Private bytes is the amount of memory that a process has allocated (and not shared with other processes). If an application is forgetting to free objects that it is no longer using (a memory leak), then it’s private bytes will not go down, but the working set will because it’s not actively using that memory. See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc780836.aspx for details on the types of statistics for resources that Windows can track for a process.

    You might want to look at the versions of the DLLs loaded by the application on each machine – it could be that a patch or service pack needs to be installed on the machine with the memory leak to fix the problem. Process Explorer can also show details of the DLLs loaded in a process.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

This may sound like a weird question but is there any where I can
This may sound very weird, but let's start with an example: <my:MagicWidget ui:field=someFieldName fieldName=someFieldName/>
This may sound like a weird question but I will give it a shot
This question may sound weird, but it's needed for injecting code to a binary.
I know this may sound like a weird question to ask but I would
this may sound like a strange question from a Python noob, but here's the
This may sound foolish, but I'm wondering all the same... Is it possible to
This may seem like a weird question but thought I would ask here before
This question may sound kinda weird but actually, I need to convince my mangement
Ok, this may sound a little weird, but what I need to do is

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.