kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> 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.
>>> When did you plan on having random access to these giant files?
>> Nothing to do with random access to giant files, everything
>> to do with what files end up not in the file system cache.
> Still doesn't remove the performance penalty of
> reading it in, paging it out, and still reading it in again.
You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
> If the large files are really such a problem, get more physical memory.
That aint how 'giant files' are used, it aint even
possible to have enough physical memory for those.
> It's not as though a pagefile is a magic fix for this either, the
> pagefile does not just receive any files too big for the filecache,
No one ever said it did.
> it is not large enough to do that even if it did.
Duh.
>>>>> 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.
>>> Not necessarily, but usually it does, particularly
>>> when a system has only 1 hard drive.
>> Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
>> able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> Wrong, _IF_ you really do have enough physical ram to be able to
> do without, enabling the paging feature will only cause more work for
> windows and accessing a slow(er) medium, versus not doing it at all.
Wrong when that superfluous pagefile activity happens in the background.
> Windows was wrote dumb to assume you don't have enough
> physical memory and start paging out beforehand, even if you
> don't ever have the need in the specific use of the system.
Utterly mangled, as always.
> I will write again that many people don't actually have
> enough physical ram, and cannot then disable the pagefile.
Irrelevant to the situation being discussed where there is
enough physical ram and what is being discussed is whether
there is any need to disable the pagefile in THAT situation.
> The issue of when it has a performance gain (disabled) depends
> entirely on having ample (some would even consider it excess
> because they think in terms of reliance of a pagefile) physical ram.
Meaningless waffle, what you always end up with when you havent got a clue.
>>> Windows can make use of idle time but at best it can only guess what
>>> to do then, and has to correct when you're actively using the system.
>> Nope, not when you have enough physical ram to be
>> able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> Doesn't matter if you have enough physical ram, if the pagefile is enabled it will page
Nope, not in a way that has any effect on performance it doesnt.
> and it will be a performance loss if you didn't need the addt'l memory it freed up.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:15:28 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> When did you plan on having random access to these giant files?
>
>>> Nothing to do with random access to giant files, everything
>>> to do with what files end up not in the file system cache.
>
>> Still doesn't remove the performance penalty of
>> reading it in, paging it out, and still reading it in again.
>
>You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
>so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
>
Yes I do, but apparently you don't. That's how it's written
to work, it pages out ahead of time before it actually knows
how much memory you might need for the *next* task.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> When did you plan on having random access to these giant files?
>>>> Nothing to do with random access to giant files, everything
>>>> to do with what files end up not in the file system cache.
>>> Still doesn't remove the performance penalty of
>>> reading it in, paging it out, and still reading it in again.
>> You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
>> so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
> Yes I do,
No you dont.
> but apparently you don't.
We'll see...
> That's how it's written to work,
No it isnt, when you have enough physical ram so that
a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
> it pages out ahead of time before it actually knows
> how much memory you might need for the *next* task.
Wrong when you have enough physical ram so that
a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
Its completely trivial to prove what it actually does when you have enough
physical ram so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
Try it, and then get a very large towel for your face, again.
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:49:04 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You dont know it does that when you have enough physical ram
>>> so that a pagefile isnt necessary and you have one anyway.
>
>> Yes I do,
>
>No you dont.
LOL
So it's just everyone's imagination when the pagefile
activity occurs?
>> Let me summarise:
>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than
>> reading a page from physical RAM.
>
> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>
> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can
operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that
windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to or not, so pages will be
swapped out from RAM to hard disk. But in your first argument here, you say
that reading pages in from that swapfile will be just as fast as reading
them from RAM. Please explain to the group how your hard disk can read pages
at the same speed as RAM?
Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest that windows swaps pages out
to virtual memory, then stores that virtual memory in physical RAM in the
form of a cache? That is plain ludicrous!
>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory while the user is
>> working will have an impact on performance
>
> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
Windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of
the amount of RAM in a system. If this happens while the user is working,
there will be an impact on performance.
>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory in the background
>> will NOT affect the performance from the user's point of view
>
> What I said.
So you agree again that windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is
present regardless of the amount of RAM in a system.
>> It is a fact that if any page required by the OS or an application is
>> in virtual memory, then the performance of that particular operation
>> will be slowed than if the page had been in physical RAM.
>
> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
You contradict yourself again - you agree that pages will be swapped out to
virtual memory, but you think they will be loaded again at RAM speed?
>> With no swap file, everything loaded will always be in physical RAM and
>> accessed at maximum speed.
>
> Just as true when you have enough physical ram to be
> able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>> With a swap file, not everything loaded will always be in physical RAM
>> so there will be an innevitable performance reduction,
>
> Wrong.
Actually it is a fact, so replying with a single word just makes you look
silly!
>> which will be measurable when pages are swapped back into physical RAM
>
> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
Yes it does - we have told you that.
>> and measurable when pages are swapped into virtual memory concurrently
>> with other user activity.
>
> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
Yes it does - we have told you that.
>> So with the swapfile turned on, windows will use it
>
> Yes.
Ah, that same self-contradiction again. You agree that windows uses the
swapfile, but can somehow load pages back from it without performance
degradation!!!
>> and the performance of the PC will be slightly reduced.
>
> Nope.
>
>> With the swapfile turned off, windows cannot use it,
>
> You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant
> children ?
Ah he has been reduced to insults - the sign of a lost argument!
>>> Let me summarise:
>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>> physical RAM.
>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can operate without a
> swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs
> to or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.
> But in your first argument here, you say that reading pages in from that swapfile will be just as
> fast as reading them from RAM.
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> Please explain to the group how your hard disk can read pages at the same speed as RAM?
Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest that windows swaps
> pages out to virtual memory, then stores that virtual memory in
> physical RAM in the form of a cache? That is plain ludicrous!
Having fun thrashing that straw man are you child ?
>>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory while the user is working will have an impact
>>> on performance
>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> Windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of the amount of RAM in a
> system.
But what ends up in the swap file is quite different when you have
enough physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.
> If this happens while the user is working, there will be an impact on performance.
You havent established that that does happen and that it
doesnt happen in the background when you have enough
physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.
>>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory in the background
>>> will NOT affect the performance from the user's point of view
>> What I said.
> So you agree again that windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of
> the amount of RAM in a system.
But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.
>>> It is a fact that if any page required by the OS or an application
>>> is in virtual memory, then the performance of that particular
>>> operation will be slowed than if the page had been in physical RAM.
>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> You contradict yourself again
Nope.
> you agree that pages will be swapped out to virtual memory,
But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.
> but you think they will be loaded again at RAM speed?
You aint established that it is loaded into physical ram again.
>>> With no swap file, everything loaded will always be in physical RAM and accessed at maximum
>>> speed.
>> Just as true when you have enough physical ram to be
>> able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>> With a swap file, not everything loaded will always be in physical
>>> RAM so there will be an innevitable performance reduction,
>> Wrong.
> Actually it is a fact,
No it isnt with the pig ignorant performance claim.
> so replying with a single word just makes you look silly!
Nope.
>>> which will be measurable when pages are swapped back into physical RAM
>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> Yes it does - we have told you that.
You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.
>>> and measurable when pages are swapped into virtual memory concurrently with other user activity.
>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> Yes it does - we have told you that.
You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.
>>> So with the swapfile turned on, windows will use it
>> Yes.
> Ah, that same self-contradiction again.
NOpe.
> You agree that windows uses the swapfile,
But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.
> but can somehow load pages back from it without performance degradation!!!
You aint even established that anything does ever get
swapped back in again when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
Using your mindlessly silly line, there would be no point in having
more physical ram, because Win will still use the swap file in the
same way as it does without that extra physical ram, and that is
clearly not so and completely trivial to prove that it is not so
because the use of the swap file CHANGES when you add more
physical ram when you dont have enough in the first place.
>>> and the performance of the PC will be slightly reduced.
>> Nope.
>>> With the swapfile turned off, windows cannot use it,
>> You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant children ?
> Ah he has been reduced to insults
Not a single insult, just fact, child.
> - the sign of a lost argument!
Pathetic, really. You're the one that's so stupid
that you cant even understand the argument.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 06:29:49 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>>> physical RAM.
>
>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>
>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>
>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can operate without a
>> swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs
>> to or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>
>But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.
.... because we all know it takes ZERO time to write files,
it's only reading them that is an issue. Not.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 06:29:49 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be
>>>>> slower than reading a page from physical RAM.
>>
>>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>
>>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>>
>>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>>
>>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM,
>>> which can operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second
>>> point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to
>>> or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>>
>> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on
>> performance.
> ... because we all know it takes ZERO time to write files,
No one ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> it's only reading them that is an issue.
Or that either.
> Not.
Keep desperately lying, you'll be out in china any day now. Again.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51f8thF1jiqteU1@mid.individual.net...
> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower
>>>> than reading a page from physical RAM.
>
>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>
>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>
>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can
>> operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that
>> windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to or not, so pages will be
>> swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>
> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on
> performance.
Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages it
will never need, so swaps them out to the page file. So your copy of windows
can see into the future!!!! Can it predict the lottery numbers as well?
Perhaps a weather forcast?
Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified with a
complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can swap out of its
2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this - just don't load those
pages in the first place?!?
GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>>>> physical RAM.
>>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM,
>>> which can operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second
>>> point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to
>>> or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.
> Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages it will never need, so
> swaps them out to the page file.
That isnt what Win is doing when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
> So your copy of windows can see into the future!!!! Can it predict the lottery numbers as well?
> Perhaps a weather forcast?
You'll end up blind if you dont watch out, child.
> Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified
> with a complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can
> swap out of its 2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this -
> just don't load those pages in the first place?!?
> Twat
Fuckwit.
Using your mindlessly silly line, if you have 1G of physical ram and are
seeing some swap file use due to not having enough physical ram, and
you would have enough physical ram with 2G, there is no point in adding
the extra, because that wont change how Win uses the swap file.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to see the problem with that stupid line.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51khbvF1kv72gU1@mid.individual.net...
> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower
>>>>>> than reading a page from physical RAM.
>
>>>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>>>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>
>>>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>
>>>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM,
>>>> which can operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second
>>>> point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to
>>>> or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>
>>> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on
>>> performance.
>
>> Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages
>> it will never need, so swaps them out to the page file.
>
> That isnt what Win is doing when you have enough physical
> ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>
>> So your copy of windows can see into the future!!!! Can it predict the
>> lottery numbers as well? Perhaps a weather forcast?
>
> You'll end up blind if you dont watch out, child.
I might go blind if I read any more of your mad ravings!
>> Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified
>> with a complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can
>> swap out of its 2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this -
>> just don't load those pages in the first place?!?
>
> Using your mindlessly silly line, if you have 1G of physical ram and are
> seeing some swap file use due to not having enough physical ram, and
> you would have enough physical ram with 2G, there is no point in adding
> the extra, because that wont change how Win uses the swap file.
It has taken 4 days dynaRod and you have finally got it half right... You
are clearly wrong in saying there is no point adding more RAM, but you are
spot on with the final sentence - windows DOES NOT change its algorithm for
swapfile usage based on RAM size. I shall have another attempt to explain
this to you:
If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as much
physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you have 2GB of
RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still insist on swapping
pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available RAM as high as possible. If
something that has been swapped out is then required it is reloaded from the
swapfile, introducing a performance degredation which we have been trying to
tell you about. If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be
no performance drop - simple as that.
If all the applications in use manage to fill up the physical RAM as in your
scenario, then the OS starts to use the page file as RAM, causing the
machine to run very slowly indeed, so adding extra RAM WILL fix this
problem, but won't change the algorithm used by windows - under normal
usage, it will continue to swap pages out in an attempt to keep as much
physical RAM available at any one time, so when these pages are required
there is a performance degredation compared with running with no swapfile.
Does that make sense, or would you like to copy and paste, "That isnt what
Win is doing when you have enough physical ram to be able to do without a
swap file and have one anyway." again?
GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Let me summarise:
>>>>>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>>>>>> physical RAM.
>>>>>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>>>>>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>>>>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>>>>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.
>>>>>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.
>>>>> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM,
>>>>> which can operate without a swapfile. You agree with the second
>>>>> point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs to
>>>>> or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.
>>>> But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.
>>> Fantastic - so windows can now see into the future and knows which pages it will never need, so
>>> swaps them out to the page file.
>> That isnt what Win is doing when you have enough physical
>> ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
>>> So your copy of windows can see into the future!!!! Can it predict
>>> the lottery numbers as well? Perhaps a weather forcast?
>> You'll end up blind if you dont watch out, child.
> I might go blind if I read any more of your mad ravings!
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Here's a crazy idea - if you have had your copy of windows modified
>>> with a complex algorithm capable of predicting which pages it can
>>> swap out of its 2GB of RAM into its swap file, then how about this -
>>> just don't load those pages in the first place?!?
>> Using your mindlessly silly line, if you have 1G of physical ram and
>> are seeing some swap file use due to not having enough physical ram,
>> and you would have enough physical ram with 2G, there is no point in
>> adding the extra, because that wont change how Win uses the swap file.
> It has taken 4 days dynaRod and you have finally got it half right...
We'll see...
> You are clearly wrong in saying there is no point adding more RAM,
> but you are spot on with the final sentence - windows DOES NOT change its algorithm for swapfile
> usage based on RAM size.
Utterly mindless pig ignorant drivel, and its completely
trivial to prove that assertion is just plain pig ignorant drivel.
AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
> I shall have another attempt to explain this to you:
Have fun explaining the effect I have just described.
> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as much physical RAM available at
> any one time. In other words, if you have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will
> still insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available RAM as high as possible.
That is just plain wrong. And its completely trivial to prove
that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong.
> If something that has been swapped out is
> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile,
And that is just plain wrong too, and its completely trivial to
prove that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong too.
> introducing a performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
All you have ever done is proved to the world that you dont
actually have a clue about how Win uses the page file when
you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file.
> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no performance drop - simple as that.
Wrong, as always. Its nothing like as simple as that and
completely trivial to prove that its nothing like as simple as that.
Even kony has never actually been stupid
enough to claim its as simple as that either.
> If all the applications in use manage to fill up the physical RAM as in your scenario, then the OS
> starts to use the page file as RAM, causing the machine to run very slowly indeed, so adding extra
> RAM WILL fix this problem,
It wouldnt if your stupid claim above was true about how Win uses the swap file.
> but won't change the algorithm used by windows - under normal usage, it will continue to swap
> pages out in an attempt to keep as much physical RAM available at any one time,
No it doesnt, and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.
> so when these pages are required there is a performance degredation compared with running with no
> swapfile.
Its completely trivial to prove that that doesnt happen in that situation
where there is enough physical ram for what the apps etc need.
> Does that make sense,
Nope, makes absolutely no sense whatever and its completely trivial
to prove that it doesnt happen like that when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
All you have done is prove to the world that you dont actually have a
clue about how Win uses the swap file when you have enough physical
ram to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway and that
you are actually so stupid that you cant prove how Win uses the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to be able to do without a swap
file and have one anyway.
GT wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as
> much physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you
> have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still
> insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available
> RAM as high as possible. If something that has been swapped out is
> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile, introducing a
> performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no
> performance drop - simple as that.
Are you saying that MS is so stupid that they swap pages out, and
then swap them back in even if they haven't been disturbed? I can
well believe that, considering their other myriad stupidities.
"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:40:22 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
>the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
>less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
Yes, you concede "MUCH less" is a good thing, but then
stumble on the concept that NONE is even better - if there
were enough physical memory to allow it.
>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no performance drop - simple as that.
>
>Wrong, as always. Its nothing like as simple as that and
>completely trivial to prove that its nothing like as simple as that.
Ok, please devote all your posting to that trivial proof.
>
>Even kony has never actually been stupid
>enough to claim its as simple as that either.
Apparently you don't find it simple. What can we say?
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
>> the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
>> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
> Yes, you concede "MUCH less" is a good thing, but
> then stumble on the concept that NONE is even better
Not if what use of the page file is done in the background.
Doing without a page file risks the system going flat on its
face when something does something stupid like request a
lot more physical ram than you have, and some apps do that.
> - if there were enough physical memory to allow it.
>>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there
>>> would be no performance drop - simple as that.
>> Wrong, as always. Its nothing like as simple as that and
>> completely trivial to prove that its nothing like as simple as that.
> Ok, please devote all your posting to that trivial proof.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to watch the
hard drive led when switching apps and notice that you DONT
see Win swap back apps that havent been used for a while
when you have enough physical ram to ensure that all the
apps still fit fine in the physical ram you have.
>> Even kony has never actually been stupid
>> enough to claim its as simple as that either.
> Apparently you don't find it simple.
Yep, its nothing like as simple as that fool claims, that
Win doesnt change its use of the page file when you go
from 1G of physical ram when that isnt enough, to 2G of
ram when that is enough and you dont turn the page file off.
Even someone as stupid you should be able to test that terminally stupid claim.
> What can we say?
Nothing except do what you two clowns keep doing, flaunt your complete pig
ignorance of how Win uses the page file when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a page file, and continue to have a page file anyway.
You two clearly are so stupid that you cant even manage the basics,
test that stupid pig ignorant claim he made that Win continues to
page stuff back into ram when there is plenty of physical ram still free.
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:05:03 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
>>> the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
>>> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
>
>> Yes, you concede "MUCH less" is a good thing, but
>> then stumble on the concept that NONE is even better
>
>Not if what use of the page file is done in the background.
.... so all we need now is an icon the user can click that
tell's the system "ok, I'm done doing anything important so
OS, you're now free to piddle away with unnecessary paging".
>Doing without a page file risks the system going flat on its
>face when something does something stupid like request a
>lot more physical ram than you have, and some apps do that.
If you were paying attention you'd have recognized that
disabling the pagefile requires the slightest bit of
attention to whether you have enough physical memory that
you don't have "some apps do that", it's not suggestion
someone should randomly follow, they have to know their
particular use won't allocate more than they have. If you
don't know that, don't do it... it's just that simple.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
>>>> the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
>>>> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
>>> Yes, you concede "MUCH less" is a good thing, but
>>> then stumble on the concept that NONE is even better
>> Not if what use of the page file is done in the background.
> ... so all we need now is an icon the user can click that
> tell's the system "ok, I'm done doing anything important so
> OS, you're now free to piddle away with unnecessary paging".
Nope, because Win does it that way automatically when you have enough
physical ram to be able to do without a page file and you have one anyway.
>> Doing without a page file risks the system going flat on its
>> face when something does something stupid like request a
>> lot more physical ram than you have, and some apps do that.
> If you were paying attention you'd have recognized
> that disabling the pagefile requires the slightest bit
> of attention to whether you have enough physical
> memory that you don't have "some apps do that",
You can never be completely sure that something you
are going to try in the future wont do that, fuckwit child.
> it's not suggestion someone should randomly follow, they have
> to know their particular use won't allocate more than they have.
Not even possible to know that with something you have never run before.
> If you don't know that, don't do it... it's just that simple.
Which is why I keep the page file, even when I have
enough physical ram to be able to do without one.
"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45B53556.5E5AED07@yahoo.com...
> GT wrote:
>>
> ... snip ...
>>
>> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as
>> much physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you
>> have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still
>> insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available
>> RAM as high as possible. If something that has been swapped out is
>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile, introducing a
>> performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no
>> performance drop - simple as that.
>
> Are you saying that MS is so stupid that they swap pages out, and
> then swap them back in even if they haven't been disturbed? I can
> well believe that, considering their other myriad stupidities.
Interesting! I don't know what windows does about a paged out page if the
RAM hasn't been disturbed. I presume in most cases the RAM will have been
used by something else, but I expect that the algorithm marks the pages out
RAM area as blank, so it won't even know where the page was originally
anyway!
> [Rod] AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
> the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
[GT] So you have finally taken on board the fact that windows does use the
swapfile when there is still sufficient free RAM. Good.
>> [GT] If something that has been swapped out is
>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile,
>
> [Rod] And that is just plain wrong too, and its completely trivial to
> prove that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong too.
[GT] Given that you have told us your PC still pages out to swapfile, please
explain to us all, in an adult sentence, how your special modified version
of windows gets those paged-out pages back into RAM without hard disk access
and a corresponding delay?
>> [Rod] AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with the last ram upgrade. The
>> system uses the swap file MUCH
>> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.
> [GT] So you have finally taken on board the fact that windows does
> use the swapfile when there is still sufficient free RAM. Good.
>>> [GT] If something that has been swapped out is
>>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile,
>> [Rod] And that is just plain wrong too, and its completely trivial to
>> prove that that stupid pig ignorant claim is just plain wrong too.
> [GT] Given that you have told us your PC still pages out to swapfile,
I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything
like that in the sense that swapfile use doesnt change.
> please explain to us all, in an adult sentence, how your special
> modified version of windows gets those paged-out pages back into RAM without hard disk access and
> a corresponding delay?
You aint even established that it does get anything back
from the swap file when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.
And its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt in fact do that with the test I spelt out.
GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote
>> GT wrote
>>> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as
>>> much physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you
>>> have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still
>>> insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available
>>> RAM as high as possible. If something that has been swapped out is
>>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile, introducing a
>>> performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
>>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no
>>> performance drop - simple as that.
>> Are you saying that MS is so stupid that they swap pages out, and then swap them back in even if
>> they haven't been disturbed?
Nope, he's actually stupid enough to claim that, even tho
its completely trivial to prove that that doesnt happen.
> Interesting! I don't know what windows does about a paged out page if the RAM hasn't been
> disturbed.
It doesnt bother to load it back from the swap file, stupid.
> I presume in most cases the RAM will have been used by something else,
Nope, NOT WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH PHYSICAL RAM
TO NOT NEED A SWAP FILE AND HAVE ONE ANYWAY.
> but I expect that the algorithm marks the pages out RAM area as blank,
Your pig ignorant expectations are your problem, as always.
> so it won't even know where the page was originally anyway!
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a clue about how the swapfile is used when you have
enough physical ram to not need a swapfile and have one anyway.
And you are actually so stupid that you cant even manage to do the test
I spelt out and prove that its nothing like what you pig ignorantly claim.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:23:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Nope, NOT WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH PHYSICAL RAM
>TO NOT NEED A SWAP FILE AND HAVE ONE ANYWAY.
>
If you have one anyway, either windows doesn't write to it
or it does. Do you claim it doesn't at all? If it does
even a tiny bit, to that extent it was slower.
If it does only to a tiny extent, we could similarly claim
it won't make much difference having it enabled or disabled
except that if you are so quick to assume you couldn't
possibly estimate the total memory allocation, you probably
can't and would end up not bothering to determine actual
physical memory needs and should then - through in ability,
leave it enabled for that reason alone, OR instead of you
don't have enough physical memory to handle all situations
of use. Remember that not everyone uses a PC as a
one-system-does-everything box, some people have a box to be
their main pc but there are many many uses for a computer
where the needs are quite a bit more fixed, finite.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> GT wrote
>>>>> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as
>>>>> much physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you
>>>>> have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still
>>>>> insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available
>>>>> RAM as high as possible. If something that has been swapped out is
>>>>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile, introducing a
>>>>> performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
>>>>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no
>>>>> performance drop - simple as that.
>>>> Are you saying that MS is so stupid that they swap pages out,
>>>> and then swap them back in even if they haven't been disturbed?
>> Nope, he's actually stupid enough to claim that, even tho
>> its completely trivial to prove that that doesnt happen.
>>> Interesting! I don't know what windows does about
>>> a paged out page if the RAM hasn't been disturbed.
Re: Page file 