Page File size

[94transam]

So what are opinions on this subject.
I have 2gb of DDR400 ram in dual mode. 4x512mb running at 200mhz

So, i have a 150gb c: drive ATA <OS is here
a 300gb media drive, SATA
and a 150gb 'programs' drive ATA

 

[postmortemIA]

256MB

 

[MrChad]

Let Windows manage it.

 

[stash]

Leave it alone.

 

[bendixG15]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

:thumbsup:

 

[postmortemIA]

BS.. large page file that is unused is a waste of space. Especially if windows has to access it all the time.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
BS.. large page file that is unused is a waste of space. Especially if windows has to access it all the time.

...which is why you should let Windows manage it, so that if it doesn't need it the swap file on disk will be very small.

In general, if you're hitting the page file very often at all, you need more RAM (or you need to run less stuff at once).

 

[bersl2]

You know, automatic management of the page file is a point of dogma for all of you. I think you all are forgetting that VM involves a lot of heuristics; for some workloads, it just doesn't work efficiently. I personally hate the aggressive, I/O-heavy nature of XP, and I think that if other people don't like the way it is performing either, they might want to explore tinkering with the few knobs that are exposed.

I know why you don't want people fooling with the page file: you think they're going to royally screw up and come screaming to you for help.

I think I'll stop here, lest I make the discussion (more) ugly.

 

[Rilex]

I think you all are forgetting that VM involves a lot of heuristics; for some workloads, it just doesn't work efficiently.

So by making the page file static, you think it will help? Or what are you trying to say?

If you're hitting page that much, then more physical memory is the only answer.

 

[94transam]

Ok, so i have used page file sizes in the past, but never with this much ram. I understand the let windows manage it part.
Which HD should i designate?

 

[Nothinman]

BS.. large page file that is unused is a waste of space. Especially if windows has to access it all the time.

And on a machine with 600G worth of space he's really doing to miss the less than 1% it'll take? And Windows will need to access it no matter what size it is, there's just no way around that in Windows right now.

You know, automatic management of the page file is a point of dogma for all of you. I think you all are forgetting that VM involves a lot of heuristics; for some workloads, it just doesn't work efficiently. I personally hate the aggressive, I/O-heavy nature of XP, and I think that if other people don't like the way it is performing either, they might want to explore tinkering with the few knobs that are exposed.

You mean pagefile usage and not VM and adjusting the size of the pagefile manually won't really help much Windows uses it. Either it will or it won't, if you make it too small it'll either complain and make it larger for you or just plain fail but the I/O will be the same. AFAIK there are no knobs worth turning in the Windows VM system.

Which HD should i designate?

It probably won't matter at all, I'd say leave it on the OS drive unless you can prove that it's causing problems. It really depends on your I/O patterns though, you want it on the least used drive so that any pagefile usage will have a minimal affect.

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: bendixG15

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

Yep.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Originally posted by: 94transam
Ok, so i have used page file sizes in the past, but never with this much ram. I understand the let windows manage it part.
Which HD should i designate?

If you have another drive on another channel then you could put it on that. Otherwise, leave it on the first partition (almost always the OS partition, which is the default).

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: bersl2
You know, automatic management of the page file is a point of dogma for all of you. I think you all are forgetting that VM involves a lot of heuristics; for some workloads, it just doesn't work efficiently. I personally hate the aggressive, I/O-heavy nature of XP, and I think that if other people don't like the way it is performing either, they might want to explore tinkering with the few knobs that are exposed.

I don't disagree with this.

I know why you don't want people fooling with the page file: you think they're going to royally screw up and come screaming to you for help.

Because generally the person asking has no knowledge of even what memory vs the paging file is and winds up simply turning it off (bad for a number of reasons, including api's that will fail in that case). If someone like you who seems to understand the issues wants to tweak, then by all means. However, your not likely to be here asking the question in the first place.

I've literally advised some people not to do something (like change default service config) since they clearly didn't understand what each was for or where in a position to judge if they needed it or not. Then they come back with some random error that eventually leads back to their tweaking. My favorite is when they are advised to turn of SystemRestore and then break the machine to the the point that SR is exacly what they do need

(stepping down from soapbox now)

 

[Bill Kunert]

I spend quite a bit of time in Flight Simulator 9 and find a fixed swap file eliminates jumpy play. I set a 3092Mb fixed file on a secondary drive. I've noticed the same thing with Microsoft's Train Simulator. I've not noticed any negatives.

 

[Bill Kunert]

I spend quite a bit of time in Flight Simulator 9 and find a fixed swap file eliminates jumpy play. I set a 3092Mb fixed file on a secondary drive. I've noticed the same thing with Microsoft's Train Simulator. I've not noticed any negatives.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Because generally the person asking has no knowledge of even what memory vs the paging file is and winds up simply turning it off (bad for a number of reasons, including api's that will fail in that case).

I run a 939 AMD X2 with 2x1GB of DDR400 and haven't been using a page file for months now. The system is stable and with plenty of memory reserves even during heavy multitasking. Could you please elaborate on the problems of a no page file strategy?

 

[bsobel]

I run a 939 AMD X2 with 2x1GB of DDR400 and haven't been using a page file for months now. The system is stable and with plenty of memory reserves even during heavy multitasking. Could you please elaborate on the problems of a no page file strategy?

There are some system api calls which require a page file (such a unnamed memory mapped file). Their usage is rare but if the pf is disabled the api will fail. A couple adobe apps were notorious for this (but may have been changed to avoid this). While it's unlikely you'd run into it, it's one of those PITA to debug if you do and usually I just recommend leaving it on 'just in case'.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: bsobel
Because generally the person asking has no knowledge of even what memory vs the paging file is and winds up simply turning it off (bad for a number of reasons, including api's that will fail in that case).

I run a 939 AMD X2 with 2x1GB of DDR400 and haven't been using a page file for months now. The system is stable and with plenty of memory reserves even during heavy multitasking. Could you please elaborate on the problems of a no page file strategy?

Some apps can't work without page file. I tried same thing, no page file, and then Photoshop wouldn't start anymore.

 

[KAZANI]

I had the same issues with Adobe programs but I experimented with setting the page file to something as low as maybe 20MB and it appeared to be working, although I did not keep the programs installed for long. So, given that my system's overall physical memory needs are by a large margin served by the amount of RAM installed, do you think that fixing the page file size to some low value -100MB perhaps- in order to prevent unnecessary hard disk activity would be a viable option?

 

[Nothinman]

do you think that fixing the page file size to some low value -100MB perhaps- in order to prevent unnecessary hard disk activity would be a viable option?

No, if the pagefile is being used then the I/O is necessary. All you'll end up doing by restricting it is cause allocations to fail.

 

[Thor86]

For my 2GB system memory system, I setup the pagefile to 1024mb on a secondary drive/partition. No issues whatsoever.

 

[Journer]

disable it...

/thread