Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
well make use of it!!"
Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
performance.
More page file needed I thought :O|
However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
not the solution.
I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair bit
free,
currently 735 meg 'available'.
I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
files are only
good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
they system
is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
probably never be
needed again.
For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some big
files
up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is recorded)
it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on many
occasions. (writes take a long time).
Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4SgQi.39167$aN2.19712@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
> reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
> well make use of it!!"
>
> Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
> performance.
> More page file needed I thought :O|
>
> However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
> not the solution.
>
> I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair
> bit free,
> currently 735 meg 'available'.
>
> I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
> files are only
> good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
> they system
> is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
> probably never be
> needed again.
>
> For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some
> big files
> up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is
> recorded)
> it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
> I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on
> many
> occasions. (writes take a long time).
>
> Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
OK done it. Will let you know it what effect it has :O)
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 04:24:32 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
<spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
>reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
>well make use of it!!"
>
>Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
>performance.
>More page file needed I thought :O|
>
>However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
>not the solution.
>
>I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair bit
>free,
>currently 735 meg 'available'.
>
>I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
>files are only
>good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
>they system
>is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
>probably never be
>needed again.
>
>For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some big
>files
>up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is recorded)
>it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
>I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on many
>occasions. (writes take a long time).
>
>Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
>
You don't need a 10GB pagefile, but in some cases you could
need one even with 1.25GB of memory. While the system will
run (many) things without a pagefile, eventually when you
run something that needs more virtual memory it may cause a
problem. Try a 2GB pagefile.
When your system reads a bit TV capture file, it is not
writing any of that out to the pagefile. The pagefile is
only for things that need to remain in memory (but you're
ran out), or addt'l address space reserved by applications
that "might" end up using up to that much memory even if
they don't.
If you have excessive HDD activity it is more likely due to
filesystem fragmentation, or some other OS setting you have
changed from the defaults.
In alt.comp.hardware Lord Turkey Cough <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
| Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
It depends on the amount of RAM you have and the amount of memory you use.
Todays applications tend to need more. As computers get bigger in memory,
the software developers steal it away from you with more bloated programs.
If you can possibly increase your RAM, that would be best. If using XP,
try to reach 3 GB but beyond that it's not much help. I don't know about
Vista. Linux can go up to 64GB in the 32 bit version.
I'm looking at a new desktop system for my Linux work and plan to make it
a swapless system with 8GB to 16GB of RAM. The intent is to avoid the
I/O activity of swapping.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2007-10-14-1045@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
32 bit Windows can address 4 GB memory, so the most paging file it can use is 4 GB.
When WinNT was may main OS I tried running without a paging file and it would cause a crash after running for a while. I have not tried WinXP without a paging file so I don't know if it will work or not.
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
> Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
> reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
> well make use of it!!"
>
> Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
> performance.
> More page file needed I thought :O|
>
> However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
> not the solution.
>
> I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair bit
> free,
> currently 735 meg 'available'.
>
> I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
> files are only
> good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
> they system
> is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
> probably never be
> needed again.
>
> For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some big
> files
> up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is recorded)
> it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
> I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on many
> occasions. (writes take a long time).
>
> Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3hQi.21$7a2.13@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:4SgQi.39167$aN2.19712@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>> Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
>> reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
>> well make use of it!!"
>>
>> Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
>> performance.
>> More page file needed I thought :O|
>>
>> However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
>> not the solution.
>>
>> I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair
>> bit free,
>> currently 735 meg 'available'.
>>
>> I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
>> files are only
>> good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
>> they system
>> is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
>> probably never be
>> needed again.
>>
>> For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some
>> big files
>> up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is
>> recorded)
>> it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
>> I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on
>> many
>> occasions. (writes take a long time).
>>
>> Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
>
>
> OK done it. Will let you know it what effect it has :O)
Seems to be running fine, nice and smooth no prblems to report
whatsoever. I can't see the point of having a cache with over a gig of ram,
its counter productive A giga of data by definition cannot be frequently
used.
It just creates a lot of unneccesary, wasting time, energy and disk space
and bearings!!
Possibly the worst idea in the history of computing!!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:20:09 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
<spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>Seems to be running fine, nice and smooth no prblems to report
>whatsoever. I can't see the point of having a cache with over a gig of ram,
>its counter productive A giga of data by definition cannot be frequently
>used.
Well... in that case some people wouldn't buy that much
memory?
You can disable the pagefile and everything will run fine,
even a trivially small percent faster, but then odd problems
can develop later.
For example I ran a gaming system fine with pagefile
disabled, then during some game (I forget what it is at this
point), it would randomly either freeze or kick me out to
the desktop (I forget which). Lots of people would've
suggested power/cooling/drivers/etc, but since I had fair
confidence of the prior checks I'd done to the system a
further investigation and enabling pagefile again resolved
the problem.
>It just creates a lot of unneccesary, wasting time, energy and disk space
>and bearings!!
>Possibly the worst idea in the history of computing!!
MS certainly doesn't want to rule out low-spec systems from
running windows. Regardless, the scenario you posed
previously about loading a video file would not cause it to
page out to virtual memory. IF you were doing something
particular, say loading that into a video editing
application which then proceeded to allocate a very large
chunk of memory for itself, in that case you would have a
small write to the pagefile allocating, typically not yet
paging out anything yet unless you had actually ran out of
physical memory for the task you were trying to do.
The disk space isn't very significant, it's not like anyone
should be trying to squeeze every last GB of space out of
their drive, as using the last portion is inherantly slower
and tends to end up more fragmented. The energy is even
less of a concern, it'd be a few mA difference in a system
using several amps per rail, and it's not as though the
drive wouldn't have been spinning since you are actively
using the system.
If you want to talk about waste in HDD access, consider
Vista which actively reads in, superfetches files just "in
case" you might want to use them, quickly filling much of
the memory so that unless the system is quite well endowed
with (otherwise more memory than would be needed), once you
start using applications requiring some of this memory the
superfetched data has to be discarded and re-read again
before next execution. Like filling a bucket then dumping
it out then filling and dumping all over again. This would
be great if it were a 2 mile trip to the nearest well, and
you had plenty of spare buckets. It's not so great when
Vista is shipped with even low-end PCs now.
A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see if
you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1 should
be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:4SgQi.39167$aN2.19712@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Was wonderinig what to set that too, I set it a while back to 10 gig :O)
> reason being I have piles of spare disk space so I thought "I might as
> well make use of it!!"
>
> Any I returned to the issue recently as I was a bit concerned about
> performance.
> More page file needed I thought :O|
>
> However upon futher though I think the big page file may be the problem
> not the solution.
>
> I have 1.25 gig of memory and most of the time there seems to be a fair
> bit free,
> currently 735 meg 'available'.
>
> I now think I would be better off without a pagefile at all. I think page
> files are only
> good for frequently used stuff and I don't have enough of it and that now
> they system
> is wasting time writing a load of 'crap' to the page file which will
> probably never be
> needed again.
>
> For example I was cleaninig out a load of stuff I recorded from TV, some
> big files
> up to 3 gig. Now I think once it reads em in (so I can see what is
> recorded)
> it is writing them back to the page file.A total waste of time.
> I would go as far as to say it more than halving my computers speed on
> many
> occasions. (writes take a long time).
>
> Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
>
"Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>ammount of physical memory in your computer.
That is an old wives tale.
Does it really make sense to have a 128meg swapfile if you only have 128meg,
but have a 1gig swapfile if you have 1gig?
Let windows manage the size... If you have lots of ram you won't be hitting
it very often anyhow.
In message <xUCQi.54854$1y4.47899@pd7urf2no> "Noozer"
<dont.spam@me.here> wrote:
>"Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
>news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>ammount of physical memory in your computer.
>
>That is an old wives tale.
It's a decent suggestion, IF the amount of RAM in your system is correct
to begin with.
Any/all of these "'x' times the amount of RAM" are totally useless if
the amount of RAM isn't sized properly for expected average and expected
peak loads.
--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
"Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see if
>you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1 should
>be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>
No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping a
load of crap
you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
file.
I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of frequently
used
data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
large might
as well read the origiinal file.
If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk which
is a much
slower process then simply reading in the original file.
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:fetds10l4k@news3.newsguy.com...
> In alt.comp.hardware Lord Turkey Cough <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> | Im gonna set it to zero. It's pointless having one with 1.2 gig of ram.
>
> It depends on the amount of RAM you have and the amount of memory you use.
> Todays applications tend to need more. As computers get bigger in memory,
> the software developers steal it away from you with more bloated programs.
>
> If you can possibly increase your RAM, that would be best. If using XP,
> try to reach 3 GB but beyond that it's not much help. I don't know about
> Vista. Linux can go up to 64GB in the 32 bit version.
>
> I'm looking at a new desktop system for my Linux work and plan to make it
> a swapless system with 8GB to 16GB of RAM. The intent is to avoid the
> I/O activity of swapping.
What exactly will you be doing that requires / can use that much RAM?
"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:LzEQi.10712$ah6.7705@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
> news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see if
>>you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1
>>should be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>>
> No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping
> a load of crap
> you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
> I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
> file.
>
> I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of
> frequently used
> data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
> large might
> as well read the origiinal file.
>
> If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk
> which is a much
> slower process then simply reading in the original file.
Contiguous swap file space versus fragmented original 100MB file. Could make
loads of difference! I personally run with 1.5GB of RAM and swapfile
disabled as I work with loads of small files that are read in, compiled, OBJ
files created, linked etc etc. If the swapfile were busy at the same time,
performance would drop.
I would suggest running the simply Windows Task Manager. Leave it open for
ages on the performance tab with the update speed (View menu) set to Low.
See how much memory you 'peak' at. If you don't get anywhere near (maybe
75%) full, then just turn off swapping. But if you run out of RAM, things
WILL fail/crash.
Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may BSOD or crash. I dont recall where I read it, but there is some fine distinction between the 'swap' and 'paging' files despite the terms being used interchangeably by almost everyone (including me!).
If you are so concerned about fragmentation of the paging file, create a small dedicated partition for it and leave it there. I have a 8 GB partition only for the page file on disk 1, while a partition on disk 0 has my XP installation.
Fragmentation is not a concern because my defragger is automatic, and enabled for partitions that see heavy disk I/O. Defragmentation occurs in the background, transparently during idle, as required for the OS and 2 other partions, thus freeing me from wasting time running defrags for the 3 partitions via a schedule or manually. Smart guy, whoever thought of making a defragger automatic.
BTW, to the OP- 1.5 GB is sufficient for most purposes, but games love 2 GB of RAM these days. If you do photoshop and stuff like that, more the RAM, the better. 2GB is about standard these days. And DDR2 RAM is so cheap right now...it's not even funny.
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> I'm looking at a new desktop system for my Linux work and plan to
> make it a swapless system with 8GB to 16GB of RAM. The intent is
> to avoid the I/O activity of swapping.
Why? If you have enough memory no swapping will take place. If
you don't, the swapping avoids crashing your software after it has
been grinding out an answer for the past 8 hours.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0112334b$0$2006$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:LzEQi.10712$ah6.7705@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
>> news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>>>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see
>>>if you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1
>>>should be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>>>
>> No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping
>> a load of crap
>> you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
>> I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
>> file.
>>
>> I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of
>> frequently used
>> data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
>> large might
>> as well read the origiinal file.
>>
>> If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk
>> which is a much
>> slower process then simply reading in the original file.
>
> Contiguous swap file space versus fragmented original 100MB file. Could
> make loads of difference! I personally run with 1.5GB of RAM and swapfile
> disabled as I work with loads of small files that are read in, compiled,
> OBJ files created, linked etc etc. If the swapfile were busy at the same
> time, performance would drop.
>
> I would suggest running the simply Windows Task Manager. Leave it open for
> ages on the performance tab with the update speed (View menu) set to Low.
> See how much memory you 'peak' at. If you don't get anywhere near (maybe
> 75%) full, then just turn off swapping. But if you run out of RAM, things
> WILL fail/crash.
Yes I suppose they would, I think I might have had that once when I opened
up a window on an application, sounds plausible.. Typically I have around
1/2 gig available. I have just put my machine up towhat I would call 'max'
usage, 4 poker applications, OE, several IE and a digital TV application
running and I have 300 meg free. I would not normally run with that kind of
load as it is quite a load on the CPU, especially the TV app.
Anyway I will keep an eye on things in the task manager and see how I get
on.
It was fine yesterday and has been fine so far today. Generally I would
prefer to run without a pagefile.
If you only have 128 meg ram then you probably shouldnt be running much
should you
"Noozer" <dont.spam@me.here> wrote in message
news:xUCQi.54854$1y4.47899@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
> news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>ammount of physical memory in your computer.
>
> That is an old wives tale.
>
> Does it really make sense to have a 128meg swapfile if you only have
> 128meg, but have a 1gig swapfile if you have 1gig?
>
> Let windows manage the size... If you have lots of ram you won't be
> hitting it very often anyhow.
>
Sorry, your reply makes me laugh considering you are the one who asked for
advice on the matter and originally had a 10 gig swap file. If you don't
want to take advice that you have asked for then dont ask for it :)
"Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:LzEQi.10712$ah6.7705@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
> news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see if
>>you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1
>>should be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>>
> No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping
> a load of crap
> you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
> I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
> file.
>
> I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of
> frequently used
> data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
> large might
> as well read the origiinal file.
>
> If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk
> which is a much
> slower process then simply reading in the original file.
>
> Poiintless.
>
"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>
> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may
> BSOD or crash. I dont recall where I read it, but there is some fine
> distinction between the 'swap' and 'paging' files despite the terms
> being used interchangeably by almost everyone (including me!).
>
> If you are so concerned about fragmentation of the paging file, create
> a small dedicated partition for it and leave it there. I have a 8 GB
> partition only for the page file on disk 1, while a partition on disk 0
> has my XP installation.
>
> Fragmentation is not a concern because my defragger is automatic, and
> enabled for partitions that see heavy disk I/O. Defragmentation occurs
> in the background, transparently during idle, as required for the OS and
> 2 other partions, thus freeing me from wasting time running defrags for
> the 3 partitions via a schedule or manually. Smart guy, whoever thought
> of making a defragger automatic.
Can't say I bother with defragging at all, never noticed any performance
difference after defragging (actually seemed slower), so I just don't bother
anymore. Don't like the idea of a back ground defragger either I prefer my
computer to be silent when idle, constant disk activity would drive me nuts.
>
> BTW, to the OP- 1.5 GB is sufficient for most purposes, but games
> *love* 2 GB of RAM these days. If you do photoshop and stuff like that,
> more the RAM, the better. 2GB is about standard these days. And DDR2 RAM
> is so cheap right now...it's not even funny.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.wirelessforums.org/alt-comp-hardware/page-file-size-ive-been-thinkinig-30288.html
> http://www.wirelessforums.org
>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:58:58 GMT, "Michael Everson"
<spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote:
>If you only have 128 meg ram then you probably shouldnt be running much
>should you
>
True that's an extreme case, though I've seen plenty of
low-end Dells/etc that shipped with WinXP, 256MB, and
integrated video taking a little of that away.
As for running much though, a 128MB system ran
conservatively (not a lot of unnecessary services running
nor 3rd party printer/scanner/etc/etc junk running) can do
well enough at very light multitasking including web, email,
office, providing the swapfile is enabled and set to a bit
more than 256MB.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:23:23 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
<spamdump@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>"Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
>news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see if
>>you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1 should
>>be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>>
>No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping a
>load of crap
>you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
>I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
>file.
>
>I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of frequently
>used
>data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
>large might
>as well read the origiinal file.
>
>If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk which
>is a much
>slower process then simply reading in the original file.
>
>Poiintless.
>
Suppose you have a system with 1GB in it. If your system
has a pagefile and swaps out unneeded files once, it then
has more real memory available for other tasks the rest of
the time it is running. What can you do with this addt'l
real memory? Not just run large jobs, it serves as a
filecache so the tasks you ARE doing, don't have to be
reread from HDD each time you start an application.
Do you see? By paging something you never use out to
swapfile, it can allow things you do use to be read from HDD
only once instead of several times inbetween reboots. This
tradeoff means that some may have a minor performance
improvement disabling pagefile, but others won't and would
have a significantly larger benefit keeping it enabled and
set to a reasonable figure.
"Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
news:XtRQi.993$cR5.571@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Sorry, your reply makes me laugh considering you are the one who asked for
> advice on the matter and originally had a 10 gig swap file. If you don't
> want to take advice that you have asked for then dont ask for it :)
>
>
>
> "Lord Turkey Cough" <spamdump@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:LzEQi.10712$ah6.7705@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Michael Everson" <spam@qeidrafting.com> wrote in message
>> news:7NCQi.823$cR5.31@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>A rule of thumb in linux is to make your swap file no bigger than the
>>>ammount of physical memory in your computer. That is probably a decent
>>>guideline to follow for windows as well. I would set it to 1gig and see
>>>if you run in to any problems. If you do then increase it to 2gig but 1
>>>should be plenty alongside your 1gig physical ram.
>>>
>> No I don't really agree, I think 90% of the time it will just be swapping
>> a load of crap
>> you will never need again to disk, and disk writes are slow.
>> I would say my computer is a lot more responsive since I ditched the page
>> file.
>>
>> I don't wish to be rude, but the idea that you have over 1 gig of
>> frequently used
>> data is ludricrous - cloud cuckoo land. If you are reading in files that
>> large might
>> as well read the origiinal file.
>>
>> If you read in 100 meg then you would have to write a 100 meg to disk
>> which is a much
>> slower process then simply reading in the original file.
>>
>> Poiintless.
>>
>
>
"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>
> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may
> BSOD or crash.
Never happenned to me in over 3 years of no paging file!
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:27 +0100, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
>news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>>
>> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
>> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may
>> BSOD or crash.
>
>Never happenned to me in over 3 years of no paging file!
>
Depends entirely on how much memory you have and what you're
running.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:i90ch35abd2e7sk1cngnttt4goodtbsvu8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:27 +0100, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
>>news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>>>
>>> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
>>> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may
>>> BSOD or crash.
>>
>>Never happenned to me in over 3 years of no paging file!
>>
>
> Depends entirely on how much memory you have and what you're
> running.
Absolutely - as I said, monitor the memory usage before turning off the
swapfile. If you fill the RAM and have no swapfile 'overflow', then things
will hang/crash. Personally I find my 1.5GB of RAM can come close to full,
but I simply close one or two of the applications I am no longer using and
usage drops down again. I prefer it this way, so when I load a large image
or work with hundreds of small files, the hard disk access is not competing
with swapfile access, which I was experiencing previously.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:05:58 +0100, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:i90ch35abd2e7sk1cngnttt4goodtbsvu8@4ax.com.. .
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:27 +0100, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
>>>news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>>>>
>>>> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
>>>> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it may
>>>> BSOD or crash.
>>>
>>>Never happenned to me in over 3 years of no paging file!
>>>
>>
>> Depends entirely on how much memory you have and what you're
>> running.
>
>Absolutely - as I said, monitor the memory usage before turning off the
>swapfile. If you fill the RAM and have no swapfile 'overflow', then things
>will hang/crash.
I agree with this, and I agree that having a pagefile is in
itself a performance loss if the system /use allows doing
without.
However, if there is no pagefile, application memory
allocation practically always exceeds real memory usage.
This means less memory remaining for not only other apps,
but that the portion of memory used for file caching is
flushed to the extent necessary to provide the memory space
requested by each app.
If there is a pagefile, the extra but unused memory
allocation can be virtualized without flushing the file
cache. It means that (like most things), even in cases
where a system's running apps remain within amount of
physical memory installed, there can still be detriments as
well as benefits to doing without a pagefile/virtual memory.
Essentially I'm saying that beyond what memory usage is
reported, there are still other issues.
>Personally I find my 1.5GB of RAM can come close to full,
>but I simply close one or two of the applications I am no longer using and
>usage drops down again. I prefer it this way, so when I load a large image
>or work with hundreds of small files, the hard disk access is not competing
>with swapfile access, which I was experiencing previously.
>
IMO, if your real memory is close to full on a regular
basis, you'd benefit from at least 256-512MB more memory to
allow a more persistent filecache.
Defragging makes a difference if you use programs that access the disk frequently. Reading a contiguous file is faster than reading a fragmented file although it does depend on the actual size of the file and degree of fragmentation (eg 2 fragments = not a big deal. 50 fragments = bad). A fragmented MFT (Master File Table) is particularly bad for performance.
Defragmentation also reduces drive wear because reading/writing a file contiguously stresses it relatively less (mechanically i.e.) since the acuator arm does not have to go nuts trying to pick up fragments from around the platter. Finally, this last point saves battery power on laptops, though it is not a factor for desktops.
As for automatic defragmentation, its not that the drive runs all the time during idle...only when necessary i.e a few minutes a day. It's hardly a bother.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Turkey Cough
Can't say I bother with defragging at all, never noticed any performance
difference after defragging (actually seemed slower), so I just don't bother
anymore. Don't like the idea of a back ground defragger either I prefer my
computer to be silent when idle, constant disk activity would drive me nuts.
Anyway, all this fragmentation stuff is OT lol. Coming back to the paging file: is there any demonstrable performance increase in NOT having a paging file, or is it just a 'feeling' that everything is faster? (Though that's good enough for me lol) Any hard performance data? I am really curious about this, but too chicken to actually try it out on my rig.
My rig at the moment is a C2D E6550 on a Gigabyte P35-DS3R mobo with 2 GB of RAM, 2x160GB + 1x250GB HDDs, 7800GT 256MB and XP Pro. It's a decent rig with sufficient RAM, but I still leave the paging file on (in a small, separate partition) because, frankly I am very scared of crashes in the middle of something important (I use Photoshop and huge DSLR RAW files a lot) and losing my data.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2r6ch39lm7leasfelfm5s49jfhqqjfc6tr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:05:58 +0100, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:i90ch35abd2e7sk1cngnttt4goodtbsvu8@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:38:27 +0100, "GT"
>>> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"startrap" <startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:startrap.2yiksk@no-mx.wirelessforums.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't disable the paging file unless you are really, really, short of
>>>>> disk space. If windows needs the paging file and cannot find it, it
>>>>> may
>>>>> BSOD or crash.
>>>>
>>>>Never happenned to me in over 3 years of no paging file!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Depends entirely on how much memory you have and what you're
>>> running.
>>
>>Absolutely - as I said, monitor the memory usage before turning off the
>>swapfile. If you fill the RAM and have no swapfile 'overflow', then things
>>will hang/crash.
>
> I agree with this, and I agree that having a pagefile is in
> itself a performance loss if the system /use allows doing
> without.
>
> However, if there is no pagefile, application memory
> allocation practically always exceeds real memory usage.
> This means less memory remaining for not only other apps,
> but that the portion of memory used for file caching is
> flushed to the extent necessary to provide the memory space
> requested by each app.
>
> If there is a pagefile, the extra but unused memory
> allocation can be virtualized without flushing the file
> cache. It means that (like most things), even in cases
> where a system's running apps remain within amount of
> physical memory installed, there can still be detriments as
> well as benefits to doing without a pagefile/virtual memory.
>
> Essentially I'm saying that beyond what memory usage is
> reported, there are still other issues.
>
>
>
>>Personally I find my 1.5GB of RAM can come close to full,
>>but I simply close one or two of the applications I am no longer using and
>>usage drops down again. I prefer it this way, so when I load a large image
>>or work with hundreds of small files, the hard disk access is not
>>competing
>>with swapfile access, which I was experiencing previously.
>>
>
> IMO, if your real memory is close to full on a regular
> basis, you'd benefit from at least 256-512MB more memory to
> allow a more persistent filecache.
Of my 1.5GB, I am normally using around 400-600MB during the day. One
particular game takes this easily to around 1 GB on its own, but performance
is otherwise excellent. My experiementation with swap files was a while
back, so maybe I should re-assess, but have been considering a little more
RAM for a while - trouble is that it means scrapping what I have now. Such
is life!
In message <006886a0$0$2905$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>My experiementation with swap files was a while
>back, so maybe I should re-assess, but have been considering a little more
>RAM for a while - trouble is that it means scrapping what I have now. Such
>is life!
That's why god invented eBay.
--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
Page File size - I've been thinkinig. 
Linear Mode
