What should I set my swap file at?

[TUK101]

I just installed 384 megs of sdram and am wondering what size I should set my swap file to? SiSoft Sandra says that setting it to a fixed size is faster than letting Windows manage my swap file. Is this true? What kind of an increase in speed is there to be gained by setting the swap file to a fixed size, or would this tip really pertain to a couple of years ago when 64mb of ram was a lot? Is this even worth messing with?

 

[UnseenMenace]

If the operationg system is Windows 9x based ( 95 ,98 ) or ME.. you should consider downloading a peice of software called cacheman from tweakfiles which has presets to change your system cache and swapfile depending what you use your system for. Cacheman aslo improves Windows ability to use the available ram.

If the Operating System is NT based (NT, 2000) I would consider watching your system resource meter for a few days and adjust your swap file respective to the information that provides

 

[AnonymousDude]

Cachman and your swapfile are not completely related.

YES a fixed swap file makes a large difference. I usually just set it to 512mb as I have enough disk space not to worry!

 

[KILLorBE]

AFAIK (and I played with it a bit) if you have 256Mb or more you could turn off the swap file, I tried it and didn't notice a difference (could be you will notice a diff.).

And yes it's true that when you set both Min. and Max. to the same value its a bit faster....well your PC wont be faster, apps and games start faster cuz windows doesn't calculate the swap file anymore.

I've always (before I had 256Mb) used this rule (for 9x based OS's):
Upto 160Mb the swap file should be 2.5x the amount of RAM.
160 - 256Mb the swap file should be 1.5-2x the amount of RAM.
256Mb or more 1x the amount of RAM or no swap file at all.

I would say play with it and you'll see, I don't recommend turning off the swap file cuz it could cause problems......but if you don't mind installing Win again try it.

 

[Placid]

The best way in my opinion would be set the minimum to 384mb and the max to its highest setting.

If you want to know why here is a link.
Setting the min and max to the same is a old "myth".

http://home.att.net/~you_know_who/swapfile.htm

 

[TUK101]

AFAIK (and I played with it a bit) if you have 256Mb or more you could turn off the swap file, I tried it and didn't notice a difference (could be you will notice a diff.).

And yes it's true that when you set both Min. and Max. to the same value its a bit faster....well your PC wont be faster, apps and games start faster cuz windows doesn't calculate the swap file anymore.

I've always (before I had 256Mb) used this rule (for 9x based OS's):
Upto 160Mb the swap file should be 2.5x the amount of RAM.
160 - 256Mb the swap file should be 1.5-2x the amount of RAM.
256Mb or more 1x the amount of RAM or no swap file at all.

I would say play with it and you'll see, I don't recommend turning off the swap file cuz it could cause problems......but if you don't mind installing Win again try it.

I have Windows 98 by the way with 384 mb of ram. I tried disabling the swap file and started getting errors right way. So i set the maximum up to 512, and left the minimum at 0. Dont know if that will help things out, but I guess that is a safe setting?

 

[Placid]

Set the 'min' and 'max' size the same for the Swap-File.

Fact: This advice can cause problems. It may help to think of your Swap-File as a glass of water sitting on the table (The level within will rise and fall as demands change and it is emptied whenever you shut Windows off). The only time it will overflow is if you try to put more into it than it can hold, (your 'max' size setting) and that is the reason you 'never' want to place a 'max' size for your Swap-File, you want it to overflow if it needs to. [This is an analogy, of course, it will not overflow, the Swap-File will increase in size if need be, possibly using non contiguous HD space until it shrinks back to your 'Min' size setting again].



Note that Windows will 'never' exceed your 'min' size unless it needs to do so or anticipate it will soon have to, but if it can't (because of a 'max' size setting) it will warn first and crash later, usually with a "Out of Memory!! warning. It is doubtful you will associate this warning with the 'max' setting you placed on your Swap-File months ago. Therefore do not cap the size or the swap file.

 

[warlok]

hey i tried running my comp with out mem mananger...i just shut it off...256 ram and i didnt have any probs

 

[Sohryu Asuka Langley]

192mb ram right now, and 700mb of swap file on 2k. i REALLY need it when im runnign photoshop with a 70% memory setting

 

[Ebola]

ram is cheap just buy more.

if you have 256+ then, set you min and max to the same. hell if you have as much ram as i do and your not doing massive cad stuff then you can set your swap to zero and it wont matter.

 

[StarTraveller]

512MB RAM and 1.5GB fixed size Page File in Win2k. Page File is placed on its own partition (the first one) on a 4-disk striped RAID - yes, it's fast...

Never have any problems .

Generally, I'd recommend setting the minimum size to what you use when you're really crazy. Look at the Task Manager after having abused your computer and look under Performance\Commit Charge. The Peak value you see is the maximum amount of memory you've used.

If you can afford it try to upgrade your RAM to this amount. Otherwise just make sure that your RAM + minimum Page File size exceeds the peak number. That way you should always have a smooth running system .

My advice is mostly intended for Win2k users.

 

[DAppel]

TUK101, just set it to 256Mb and defrag the partition with Norton SpeedDisk, placing the swap file on the begining of the partition.
If you feel that 256 is too small, then use 384 or 512. There is no general rule, it's a matter of taste.

I've got two somewhat fast drives, so my swap is on the first partition of the second drive. This enables the OS to do normal disk operations while accessing the swap concurrently.

It's much like StarTraveller's setup. Gosh I wish I had a RAID array...

 

[StarTraveller]

DAppel, how fast is "somewhat fast"?

My system disk (with OS and apps) is a Quantum Atlas 10K II. Provides for very smooth operation .

At first I didn't know whether to put the page file on the SCSI disk or IDE RAID. The Atlas has extremely fast write speeds and access times - far better than what even my 4-disk RAID can deliver.

I ended up placing the page file on the IDE RAID for the same reasons you mention - I wanted the system to be able to access page file and OS/apps simultaneously.

I've been thinking about playing with it, though, and do some testing to see what works best. But tests take time and I'm short on that .