Why, What, Where & How too...
This guy covers it all.......
http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=143&var2=0
This guy covers it all.......
http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=143&var2=0
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
The Ultimate Virtual Memory Guide
- Thread starter cozmo_d
- Start date
Brundle Fly
Disabled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Location
- ...Barrie, ON, Can...
...rojakpot rocks, the BIOS guide is a must read... 
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
Can anyone tell us what I should set my Virtual Memory too I have 1GB of RAM after a fresh boot-up I use about 170mb PF usage and after playing games and using WMP10 for music it goes upto about 220mb. My VM is set to what Windows Requires but I wonder after reading that guide am I waisting space. The page in that guide which tells you what I should set it too won't load up so any estimates of what I should set it too.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2000
- Location
- Portland, OR
My recommendation would be...Initial size: 512MB; Maximum size: 768MB
Brundle Fly
Disabled
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Location
- ...Barrie, ON, Can...
Quattro said:
...yeah, been around forever, keeps being revised, explains what the he;; is actually goin on in there, have a read...
http://www.rojakpot.com/default.aspx?location=3&var1=143&var2=0
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2000
- Location
- Portland, OR
For a system with less than a GB of RAM, I always suggest letting XP manage the PF. I've found through quite a bit of experimentation that XP manages the paging file quite a bit better than the previous versions of Windows...and for the optimal PF solution, let XP manage it (System managed size). I've also tried the following, with only a very slight improvement noted in overall system speed. The following quote is taken from the MSKB article I've linked to below...
How to Configure Paging Files for Optimization and Recovery in Windows XP
You can also download a free utility for measuring actual paging file usage from...
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from...
http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/
If that utility reports that there is 50MB or more of actual paging file usage on a consistent basis, then that indicates that a fairly substantial amount of paging activity is occurring. Even if there is no actual paging file usage reported, the paging file is still necessary for the proper functioning of Windows memory management...and to enhance the efficient usage of the RAM. IOW, you shouldn't completely disable paging (like some folks suggest doing) even with a large amount of RAM like 1GB or more. Virtual Memory is always in operation anyway, and can't be “turned off” (or...“set the system to use no page file space at all”.)
You can set the initial size down lower...and it will never get bigger, and won't see any traffic (except the system initially parking a few files in it). Not having the possibility of paging would result in locking out a lot of RAM. The reason is that many programs ask for allocations of virtual address space far bigger than they actually use...these have to be associated with some physical device. If there's a page file in place, they can go with that...resulting in a page file on which there isn't any traffic. If you don't have a page file, then they have to be assigned to RAM, and that part of RAM becomes effectively useless...it can't be used for anything else.
How to Configure Paging Files for Optimization and Recovery in Windows XP
You can also download a free utility for measuring actual paging file usage from...
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm or from...
http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/
If that utility reports that there is 50MB or more of actual paging file usage on a consistent basis, then that indicates that a fairly substantial amount of paging activity is occurring. Even if there is no actual paging file usage reported, the paging file is still necessary for the proper functioning of Windows memory management...and to enhance the efficient usage of the RAM. IOW, you shouldn't completely disable paging (like some folks suggest doing) even with a large amount of RAM like 1GB or more. Virtual Memory is always in operation anyway, and can't be “turned off” (or...“set the system to use no page file space at all”.)
You can set the initial size down lower...and it will never get bigger, and won't see any traffic (except the system initially parking a few files in it). Not having the possibility of paging would result in locking out a lot of RAM. The reason is that many programs ask for allocations of virtual address space far bigger than they actually use...these have to be associated with some physical device. If there's a page file in place, they can go with that...resulting in a page file on which there isn't any traffic. If you don't have a page file, then they have to be assigned to RAM, and that part of RAM becomes effectively useless...it can't be used for anything else.
Last edited:
Very interesting. What do people think of the guide? Even with 512 of ram in one of my systems, I noticed a huge difference in setting up a permanent/contigous paging file. Windows no longer freezes up or gets bogged down when loading up memory intensive applications. Granted I'm no expert in the matter & still learning. But from experimenting last night, I noticed this to be a pretty remarkable tweak.
I set my paging file at 700 on my spare SATA drive & 600 on my spare IDE drive. Turned paging off for my main drive, WD Raptor. I also followed the instructions on moving the paging file to your outer most tracks on your HD. This is the part I'm curious about, because it does not seem like it actually did this. But I need to find a better program to examine the drive map.
But, all in all, seems like whenever programs need memory or need to get rid of programs out of memory, it does it a whole lot faster & without lagging up, while using less.
I set my paging file at 700 on my spare SATA drive & 600 on my spare IDE drive. Turned paging off for my main drive, WD Raptor. I also followed the instructions on moving the paging file to your outer most tracks on your HD. This is the part I'm curious about, because it does not seem like it actually did this. But I need to find a better program to examine the drive map.
But, all in all, seems like whenever programs need memory or need to get rid of programs out of memory, it does it a whole lot faster & without lagging up, while using less.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Location
- Gainesville, FL
redduc900:
About your quote on pagefile optimization. I need some advice since after going through some MS articles that you linked to in your post about PF one said to "Do not put multiple paging files on different partitions on the same physical disk drive.."
So, according to you what is better to do if I have 2 HD split into 4 partitions with 1GB of memory? Have one PF in the C:\ and then put another one in the least used partition which is in the non-OS drive for me, or to just put the PF in the partition with no data and have no PF's in the rest of the drives? Thanks for any help.
About your quote on pagefile optimization. I need some advice since after going through some MS articles that you linked to in your post about PF one said to "Do not put multiple paging files on different partitions on the same physical disk drive.."
So, according to you what is better to do if I have 2 HD split into 4 partitions with 1GB of memory? Have one PF in the C:\ and then put another one in the least used partition which is in the non-OS drive for me, or to just put the PF in the partition with no data and have no PF's in the rest of the drives? Thanks for any help.
Last edited:
From what I gather, putting a page file on each first partition of both your HD's would be most beneficial.
So..........
Primary disk 1-
Partition1 (insert page file here)
Partition2
Primary disk 2-
Partition1 (page file here)
Partition2
It's also been noted to not set two drives up with a page file if they are on the same IDE. IF you use sata this does not apply.
So..........
Primary disk 1-
Partition1 (insert page file here)
Partition2
Primary disk 2-
Partition1 (page file here)
Partition2
It's also been noted to not set two drives up with a page file if they are on the same IDE. IF you use sata this does not apply.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2002
- Location
- Rootstown, OH
Redduc, I am VERY surprised with your response actually. Is this just the way you have tended to do things, or do you not like the idea of setting a static page file for some reason?
It has been my understanding and practice to always manually set min and max to the same value, in order to minimize file fragmentation across the volume - under heavy pagefile usage conditions, it seems tangible to me how setting a static pagefile reduces fragmentation and lowers the amount of defragmentation activity when its necessary.
Here is some more constructive information on pagefiles and partitions:
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=MultiplePagefiles
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=PartitionSingleDrive
EDIT:
The only other thing I can note, is that if you like to have the option to analyze full memory dumps, you will need a pagefile larger than your system memory in order to create a full dump. I have never found dumps useful or necessary in my troubleshooting experience, and I am not familiar with anyone who uses dumps to fix problems though - it seems there is always an easier way for 99% of problems I see.
1 page file per drive is the rule. IMO, you should not have 4 partitions on those 2 drives. At most you should have 3, and then use folders for any other sort of organization. 3 partitions would mean 1 for OS and applications/games, 2 for data one of which is on the OS drive seperate from the system and the other which is on the secondary drive by itself. More than that, and the partitions are just keeping big chunks of space between data = slower.
You should keep the pagefile in the partition with other data, not seperate it - for similar reasons as above. Seperating it in its own partition is giong to increase the amount of time it takes for the heads to get to the pagefile, and it will also make for more travel if the RW heads have to go from pagefile to data, and back to pagefile.
@RichT: I would use ~800MB min and max for your system, depending on how much HDD space you have. If you don't have much space, I'd lower that, if you have plenty, then I would probably go for an even GB.
You can always err on the side of too little space if you want to conserve room on your HDD. If you receive any messages about space being insufficient, you can then raise the size larger.
It has been my understanding and practice to always manually set min and max to the same value, in order to minimize file fragmentation across the volume - under heavy pagefile usage conditions, it seems tangible to me how setting a static pagefile reduces fragmentation and lowers the amount of defragmentation activity when its necessary.
Here is some more constructive information on pagefiles and partitions:
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=MultiplePagefiles
http://faq.storagereview.com/tiki-index.php?page=PartitionSingleDrive
EDIT:
The only other thing I can note, is that if you like to have the option to analyze full memory dumps, you will need a pagefile larger than your system memory in order to create a full dump. I have never found dumps useful or necessary in my troubleshooting experience, and I am not familiar with anyone who uses dumps to fix problems though - it seems there is always an easier way for 99% of problems I see.
Cid said:
1 page file per drive is the rule. IMO, you should not have 4 partitions on those 2 drives. At most you should have 3, and then use folders for any other sort of organization. 3 partitions would mean 1 for OS and applications/games, 2 for data one of which is on the OS drive seperate from the system and the other which is on the secondary drive by itself. More than that, and the partitions are just keeping big chunks of space between data = slower.
You should keep the pagefile in the partition with other data, not seperate it - for similar reasons as above. Seperating it in its own partition is giong to increase the amount of time it takes for the heads to get to the pagefile, and it will also make for more travel if the RW heads have to go from pagefile to data, and back to pagefile.
@RichT: I would use ~800MB min and max for your system, depending on how much HDD space you have. If you don't have much space, I'd lower that, if you have plenty, then I would probably go for an even GB.
You can always err on the side of too little space if you want to conserve room on your HDD. If you receive any messages about space being insufficient, you can then raise the size larger.
Last edited:
I have a weird 'issue' that's only been happening for a couple of weeks.
I have WinXP+SP1 and 2x 512Mb. I have a 1.5Gb partition (D) which is just for the swap file, and I had the VM set to 'System Managed' (nearly always 564Mb). Recently 2 or 3 times a day I get a pop-up saying 'Windows Virtual Memory set to low - Windows will now adjust your swap file settings'.
This seemed quite odd as I wasn't doing anything memory intensive at the time. I did a bit of checking and found that I had over 500Mb of real memory free, and that the swapfile size hadn't changed, so 'System Managed' isn't managed very well, and 'Windows will now adjust your swap file settings' is a complete lie.
I decided to set the VM to 512-1024 instead, I still have a swapfile of about 564Mb and I'm still only using about half my real ram when these messages pop-up, and they still don't change anything. As it doesn't seem actually interfere with the PC's performance (which also seems fine) I just ignore it and put it down to 'STUPID WINDOWS'.
I have WinXP+SP1 and 2x 512Mb. I have a 1.5Gb partition (D) which is just for the swap file, and I had the VM set to 'System Managed' (nearly always 564Mb). Recently 2 or 3 times a day I get a pop-up saying 'Windows Virtual Memory set to low - Windows will now adjust your swap file settings'.
This seemed quite odd as I wasn't doing anything memory intensive at the time. I did a bit of checking and found that I had over 500Mb of real memory free, and that the swapfile size hadn't changed, so 'System Managed' isn't managed very well, and 'Windows will now adjust your swap file settings' is a complete lie.
I decided to set the VM to 512-1024 instead, I still have a swapfile of about 564Mb and I'm still only using about half my real ram when these messages pop-up, and they still don't change anything. As it doesn't seem actually interfere with the PC's performance (which also seems fine) I just ignore it and put it down to 'STUPID WINDOWS'.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2004
PCgirly said:I have a weird 'issue' that's only been happening for a couple of weeks.
I have WinXP+SP1 and 2x 512Mb. I have a 1.5Gb partition (D) which is just for the swap file, and I had the VM set to 'System Managed' (nearly always 564Mb). Recently 2 or 3 times a day I get a pop-up saying 'Windows Virtual Memory set to low - Windows will now adjust your swap file settings'.
This seemed quite odd as I wasn't doing anything memory intensive at the time. I did a bit of checking and found that I had over 500Mb of real memory free, and that the swapfile size hadn't changed, so 'System Managed' isn't managed very well, and 'Windows will now adjust your swap file settings' is a complete lie.
I decided to set the VM to 512-1024 instead, I still have a swapfile of about 564Mb and I'm still only using about half my real ram when these messages pop-up, and they still don't change anything. As it doesn't seem actually interfere with the PC's performance (which also seems fine) I just ignore it and put it down to 'STUPID WINDOWS'.
Hey, first of all... Welcome to the Forums!!!!!!!
Anyways, what windows is telling you is that conintually adjusting the swap file... it's not an error, but it does get annoying.
Is that partition on the same drive as all your other stuff (like windows and your program files)? If so, it's really not going to help you. And that could be another problem in itself, maybe windows is adjusting another swap file on your C: drive.
In your case, I would set your pagefile to static 512 mb min and 768 mb max on your C: drive (unless if the D: drive you mentioned is on another hard disk).
Good Luck!
Similar threads
