Optimal Pagefile...

[vtec96]

ok, im sure this has been discussed, however did not see any previous posts??

Currently I have 512MB RAM in this system and have 200 min/max pagefile. I thinks the min/max should be the same. However, with my new system, eventually with 512MB, I was thinking that NO swap/page file would be needed? Or should I have one "just in case" Windows needs it?

Opinions?

 

[David]

You should get away without one, but I would have one nevertheless.

 

[Arkaine23]

pagefile

512 is enough most of the time, but I'd keep 100-200MB anyway. My own formula is memory + pagefile = 644 MB. No reason why, just thought that'd be good.

 

[RedDeathDrinker]

I currently run my pagefile at 50Mb. This is with 512Mb of RAM, and everything runs super-smooth........

 

[vtec96]

I currently run my pagefile at 50Mb. This is with 512Mb of RAM, and everything runs super-smooth........

ok well that sounds good, BUT would there be any advantages (other than more HD space) to have ZERO SWAP FILE size? Just curious? ..... if not then ill just keep it at 100 or so for now

 

[RedDeathDrinker]

Not really any great advantage, it just means the hard drive isn't under constant access for the page file..........

100Mb should do you fine.

 

[vtec96]

Can you possibly explain this to me though? I have been wondering WHY Windows seems to be using some Pagefiles when I have 512 MB and all of it is not being used! Windows is paging WITHOUT first using my RAM? Maybe im not reading it fully or something

 

[Fraggle]

swap files are a constant argument. Search google and you'll find thread GALORE about this, in every flavor of WinHosed.


I did find an article a couple of weeks back on how to force WinXP to leave Windows Executive in memory all the time, no paging. Good in theory, but only if your really using all of windows.
2 considerations the author brought up are :
1. how much memory are you using when your doing the usual (for me, gaming ). Do you have enough left for all 22mg of WinHosed?
2. Is WINDOWS being used enough to make this worthwhile? Now biz apps, Word Photoshop CAD stuff, they make use of far more of winhosed than Max Payne. Payne just needs to know how to access hardware.

/begin rant/

Personally I'm not burning cd's and surfing and chatting and listening to music (well mostly I'm not) all at the same time, and my games use every bit of memory I have. So my swap file gives windows a place to put all those modules that I'm not actively using, as well as the programs that I forgot to close before I started playing.

So IMHO any NonBiz incarnation of M$ software NEEDS a swap file of at least a couple of hundred megs. Gives that Fat Hairy Bloated Mad Cow called WinHosed somewhere to go when I'm using my computer the way god intended!!!!


/end rant/



P.S. Windows has the ability to automatically place software into pagefile. So when you open a program it may place unused portions of itself right into pagefile. Some software is written to live there

 

[David]

Can you possibly explain this to me though? I have been wondering WHY Windows seems to be using some Pagefiles when I have 512 MB and all of it is not being used! Windows is paging WITHOUT first using my RAM? Maybe im not reading it fully or something

My swapfile is 310MB used - but my system has been up for over 2 days without a reboot (well, its a record for me ). I have 512MB AND enabled the registry to keep all of windows XP in memory.

 

[vtec96]

ok, then would it be beneficial to Force Windows to use RAM First and then have a 100-200 MB swap file there "just in case"?
How would I force windows to do this? ANyone else think this is a good idea?

 

[The Coolest]

From my expirience is for optimal performance and mem managment is to make a swap file that is x2 than ur physical mem, its like, I have 256 MB RAM I'm using a 512MB swapfile.
It works really good for me, on win2k, after a 15hours Photoshop + Q3A + Forums + a bunch of other stuff, b4 I shut it down (turned all the unused apps off) I had 41% USED Physical memory...

 

[JigPu]

Once again, another user with yet another opinion on the "optimal" swap file

Right now, I have an excruciating 64MB of physical RAM. With what I do with my computer, I hardly use it. Usually, by the time Windows freezes (stupid Win98) I'm only 50MB AT MOST into my 200MB swap file. I once read a really good article that makes a good point on how big your swap file should be...

... As big as you use ...

It's just that simple. You open everything you would ever think of having open at once and then try to eat up the swap file with the software. Monitor the size of you swap file and then throw an extra 100MB of a "safety net" over the most your computer used. This way, your swap file will be big enough to handle what you would probably ever do, and small enough that it isn't wasting disk space.

JigPu

 

[Deadlifter]

I'm running zero for swapfile under WinXP Pro and I haven't had a problem yet!

 

[Oni]

My approach to this situation is:

If you have 512+MB - No swapfile

If you have anywhere from 128-384, take the amount of RAM you have and add 12 for minimum. Maximum is double your amount of RAM.

It always works for me.

 

[Wolfmist]

Oni, I have 512 MB, but I think that if I were to do video editing, extentensive photoshop editing, or scanning very detailed photos, 512 alone would not be enough. For gaming it definitly would be though. It would be nice if windows had a funtion to only use the swapfile when the memory was 100% full. Anyone know how to do this?

 

[vtec96]

Oni, I have 512 MB, but I think that if I were to do video editing, extentensive photoshop editing, or scanning very detailed photos, 512 alone would not be enough. For gaming it definitly would be though. It would be nice if windows had a funtion to only use the swapfile when the memory was 100% full. Anyone know how to do this?

Thats exactly what I want to know: How to force Windows to use only RAM first, then a Pagefile if needed! I guess the main benefit would be no HD (slow) accessing and taking up HD space, and faster access by using RAM. Im pretty sure there is a registry tweak to do it but not shure where ........ Anyone

 

[bdf24]

I run out of virtual memory no matter what size page file I use. I've tried everything from no pagefile to 500mb's. If my PC is running for a few day's I'll run out of virtual memory. Then I gotta restart to get the PC act normal? I'm still trying to figure it out. tested the ram and all seem's fine.

 

[Deadlifter]

Well,

I take it back!

Running with no swapfile isn't working for me that well. I've hit a couple instances where WinXP is telling me that Windows has to increase the size of my virtual memory. The fault has occurred when I'm been re-encoding a large .avi file or unRARing a large set of files. I might understand this, but then why does my task manager show over 300 Megs of unused physical memory when this message shows up?

 

[David]

Well,

I take it back!

Running with no swapfile isn't working for me that well. I've hit a couple instances where WinXP is telling me that Windows has to increase the size of my virtual memory. The fault has occurred when I'm been re-encoding a large .avi file or unRARing a large set of files. I might understand this, but then why does my task manager show over 300 Megs of unused physical memory when this message shows up?

Because windows is rubbish at managing memory

 

[Deadlifter]

I'll agree with the rubbish explanation, but does anybody have a more knowledgeable/technical explanation for why I run into a virtual memory error when I've got over 300 megs of unused physical RAM left? XP is not trying to dump data for any error, it's just out of virtual memory.

My only clue is it occurs during very large processing tasks which I might expect to use lots of memory, but it's not using the physical RAM first.