🚀 go-pugleaf

> Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite that simple. That was my original 
> conclusion until I found another quote on MSDN:
> 
> "Processes in Windows NT are granted subtle influence into this system 
> behavior with the VirtualLock and VirtualUnlock functions. Essentially, a 
> process can establish specific pages to lock into its working set. However, 
> this does not give the process free reign over its working set. It cannot 
> affect the number of pages that make up its working set (the system adjusts 
> the working set for each process routinely), and it cannot control when the 
> working set is in memory and when it is not."
> 
> That's saying that the whole lot can be shoved to disk under certain 
> conditions.
> 
> That's why we're currently not convinced that VirtualLock does truly lock 
> pages into physical memory.

I guess Microsoft wants to prevent the possibility of bringing down a 
system by locking to much physical pages and therefor keeps the 
possibility open for swapping the workingset anyway.

In your original post you wrote
 > (the reason being it will hold cryptographic keys that I don't
 > want swapped out)
Why don't you want them to be swapped out?

Security? AFAIK memory isn't anymore secure then the swapfile.


Regards,
Eelke