kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Wrong with an OS that has enough of a clue to not use it
> unless its necessary because there isnt enough physical memory.

> I take it you either never used WINDOWS
> or never bothered to monitor pagefile activity.

More fool you, as always.

I used the words AN OS there for a reason.

>> Pity about when the pagefile is just used to provide
>> faster access to the read only files on the hard drive.

> That's wrong enough I don't know where to start.

We'll see.

> Pagefile isn't necessarily any faster than rest of HDD,

Wrong. Random access to the indexed page file
is a lot quicker than going thru the file system
with stuff that is too big for the file system cache.

> the only gain there is if paging unneeded things left more
> memory available for a (larger) filecache in physical memory.

Wrong again.

>>>>> If you're going to have a pagefile active, it should be large
>>>>> enough to handle the entire memory allocation from applications.

>> Wrong.

>>>> why?

>>> Because that's the whole point of a pagefile,

>> Nope.

>>> to virtually provide memory that's not there,

>> It isnt the ENTIRE MEMORY ALLOCATION FROM THE APPS
>> that matters, its the excess over the physical memory that matters.

> Never suggested it wasn't.

He clearly did.

> The fact remains that it is possible a use(s) won't have any excess
> over physical memory but windows will still have pagefile activity.

But that doesnt necessarily impact performance.