"Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:45b09286$0$49207$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> (message (Hello 'kony)
> (you :wrote :on '(Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:51:03 -0500))
> (
>
> k> If there is enough physical memory, enabling a pagefile will
> k> ALWAYS, no matter what other variable, be slower.
>
> how do you measure 'enough' or 'not enough' memory?

I would recommend opening all the applications you will ever use one at a
time and in typical configurations and load a few files, use things for a
while, then check with the of task manager to see what percentage of total
memory you managed to use. If this is anywhere near the physical amount of
RAM, then leave a swapfile in place. If nowhere near the amount of physical
RAM (less than 75% perfaps) then turn off the swapfile.

> i've already said you, that RAM is used as cache for files and filesystem
> structures.
> thus, it's not possible to say if it's enough or not -- just, with more
> RAM it would be faster, with less it would be slower.
>
> if i'm doing some intensive file operations, (for example, compilation of
> large C++ project), i'd like as much file cache be used as possible. at
> same time, i don't care about other applications being in RAM -- i'd
> prefer them to be swapped out, to give more RAM to file cache. compilation
> can go for 10 minutes, in some cases of extra large project for hours.
> additional file cache might significantly improve performance.

I work from home as a C++ developer! I have my swapfile turned off in order
to improve performance. If I am in a position to not care about other
applications, then I close them, but typically I have Explorer, Outlook, MS
Visual Studio (x2), IE, Word and Excel open in my 1.5GB RAM and my memory
useage rarely goes above 0.5GB even at peak times. When I compile our large
project (23 different project solutions which compile over 15 minutes in
batch mode), the hard disk never stops thrashing as it loads small class
files from disk, compiles them and saves them as object files, which are
then reloaded and linked to form 23 EXEs and DLLs. With the added
complication of swapping files to and from a virtual memory file at the same
time as all this other disk activity, performance would be hit
significantly.

> yes, IDE, firefox and other stuff will need to be swapped back after that,
> but i think i won't mind some three-second delay, if that helped to speed
> up thing. (i'd say that this delay is inevitable -- windows can 'forget'
> about EXEs and DLLs being loaded in favour of file cache).

And how long does it take to press the button on your shortcut bar to open
these applications again - given that they have been cached by windows -
probably somewhere in the region of 2 - 3 seconds!!

> yes, certainly getting more RAM would help. but if 1 GB RAM + swap will
> give me aprox same performace as 2 GB RAM -- why should i pay more?

Fair question, but based on a false premise - the answer is that 2GB of RAM
will potentially give you much better performance than 1GB RAM + swapfile.
The performance increase will however depend greatly on what you are doing
and how much more than 1GB of RAM your day-to-day use requires and I suspect
that you probably don't use much more than 1GB RAM.

Turn the update speed to low on your task manager and occasionally make the
performance tab full screen and check the page file useage history - this is
actually memory usage, not pagefile usage!

> )
> (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
> "People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")
>