Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
XP Pagefile and W98 Swapfile
- Thread starter toolman59
- Start date
If you set the Min and Max value of the pagefile to the same value as "Recommended size", the pagefile will not defragment. You can place it on its own partition. Discussion:
And as mentioned in Help and Support [in both WinXP and Win2000] and a search on paging file, it's best to have it on a second physical drive.
Also mentioned in Help and Support is that the paging file should be 1.5 times the physical RAM, unless larger is needed for heavy graphics/video work.
Also mentioned in Help and Support is that the paging file should be 1.5 times the physical RAM, unless larger is needed for heavy graphics/video work.
Mi¢ro$oft's views:
"The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is, by default, stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another, less frequently accessed partition"
"When you place a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does not become fragmented"
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
"The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is, by default, stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another, less frequently accessed partition"
"When you place a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does not become fragmented"
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
cdogg,
I used to believe that. I still believe that a small pagefile on the boot partition is wise.
Jim Eshelmen, MS-MVP really looked hard at the issue. As did Daniel Petri. I think your statement above will be true, but for different reasons than what you started with. And rather than this be an argumentative post, I really would be interested in your opinion/experience. The Daniel Petri piece incudes some utilities to monitor the pagefile, and I would genuinly like to know the results of you own testing.
Jim Eshelmen's piece: Daniel Petri's notes and links:
I used to believe that. I still believe that a small pagefile on the boot partition is wise.
Jim Eshelmen, MS-MVP really looked hard at the issue. As did Daniel Petri. I think your statement above will be true, but for different reasons than what you started with. And rather than this be an argumentative post, I really would be interested in your opinion/experience. The Daniel Petri piece incudes some utilities to monitor the pagefile, and I would genuinly like to know the results of you own testing.
Jim Eshelmen's piece: Daniel Petri's notes and links:
bcastner,
Yes, I was simply quoting Mi¢ro$oft and don't necessarily carry the same views. Interesting articles...these guys have really gone the extra mile in both experimentation and explanation.
I too have discovered over time that the pagefile (NT/2000/XP) or the swapfile (95/98/ME) size depends on the types of applications run and whether there is a large or small amount of RAM. Typically, the larger the amount of RAM, the smaller the pagefile can be. It does not necessarily need to always be 1.5 or 2.5 times the size of RAM. I think MS recommends this to be on the "safe" side for those who have less than 512MB of RAM or no experience in testing.
The only reason I would keep one pagefile on the boot partition is for STOP error messages. According to MS, one is needed there at least 128MB in size (preferably 200MB) in order to create a memory dump file.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Yes, I was simply quoting Mi¢ro$oft and don't necessarily carry the same views. Interesting articles...these guys have really gone the extra mile in both experimentation and explanation.
I too have discovered over time that the pagefile (NT/2000/XP) or the swapfile (95/98/ME) size depends on the types of applications run and whether there is a large or small amount of RAM. Typically, the larger the amount of RAM, the smaller the pagefile can be. It does not necessarily need to always be 1.5 or 2.5 times the size of RAM. I think MS recommends this to be on the "safe" side for those who have less than 512MB of RAM or no experience in testing.
The only reason I would keep one pagefile on the boot partition is for STOP error messages. According to MS, one is needed there at least 128MB in size (preferably 200MB) in order to create a memory dump file.
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
cdogg,
The Jim Eshelmen, and Daniel Petri articles are both exceptional pieces of work on Windows shell issues with the pagefile and virtual memory.
I agree with Daniel Petri's observation: let XP prompt for a recommended pagefile size. Move it to a different partition if you like, but no matter what set the Min and Max values to that recommended value, even if based on the 1.5 rule.
And never worry about it again.
Thanks for your comments.
Best,
Bill Castner
The Jim Eshelmen, and Daniel Petri articles are both exceptional pieces of work on Windows shell issues with the pagefile and virtual memory.
I agree with Daniel Petri's observation: let XP prompt for a recommended pagefile size. Move it to a different partition if you like, but no matter what set the Min and Max values to that recommended value, even if based on the 1.5 rule.
And never worry about it again.
Thanks for your comments.
Best,
Bill Castner
On a final note, I will say that I set the min = max as well on most of my systems. However, after coming across this article, I've been finding myself second-guessing my practice:
Since I have never really gotten any "out of memory" messages due to setting a static swapfile size, I haven't been too worried about it. I've assumed that the size I'm setting is higher than what is being used by the system.
Your mileage may vary...
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Since I have never really gotten any "out of memory" messages due to setting a static swapfile size, I haven't been too worried about it. I've assumed that the size I'm setting is higher than what is being used by the system.
Your mileage may vary...
~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind"
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
Well I like to give my piece as well. Our machines use 4 and 6 Gbytes of ram. It would be completely insane to add a swapfile of 6 or 9 Gigabytes. What I did is to fix the swapfiles to the same max and min values namely 512 Mbytes. This is only for safety reasons as winxp does use a small amount of the swapfile for its system operations. We never had an out of memory error. However if the existing ram is dumped due to some missbehaving application, we get a blue screen. Why this is so I fail to understand as the dump is to the drives. So I would say the max swapfile size depends inversely to your available ram. The more ram you have the smaller the swapfile can be. This however is my own opinion and somebody might correct me. Greetings Jurgen
- Thread starter
- #13
We are using Unix with multiple risk processors. However also have an independent xp os on a daughter bord which uses a P4 HT EE. This is so that we do not have to emulate an Intel processor system at all times, we can switch the processors over during boot up. You are quite correct that the intel chips can only see 32 bits. Sorry I should have been clearer in my posting. My server uses 6 Gbytes the other machines 4 Gbytes. Jurgen
"So I would say the max swapfile size depends inversely to your available ram. The more ram you have the smaller the swapfile can be. This however is my own opinion and somebody might correct me. Greetings Jurgen"
Read the Jim Eshelmen and Daniel Petri links provided earlier.
In general, this is not a true statement.
Read the Jim Eshelmen and Daniel Petri links provided earlier.
In general, this is not a true statement.
- Thread starter
- #17
Gerschwin
I followed your advice on setting the Pagefile, when I get to the Pagefile dialog I cannot find a way to change the location, only the size. There are other options but these don't seem to allow for changing location.
Am I missing something obvious? It would'nt be the first time.
Toolman59
I followed your advice on setting the Pagefile, when I get to the Pagefile dialog I cannot find a way to change the location, only the size. There are other options but these don't seem to allow for changing location.
Am I missing something obvious? It would'nt be the first time.
Toolman59
- Thread starter
- #18
Please ignore my previous post. I realise now how it is set on a different drive or partition.
However this raises another question, as I understand it,a new Pagefile is generated at Boot up. If this so, can a dual boot system containing containing two XP OSs use the same partition as if it belonged only to the currently booted OS?
Sorry about the previous post, the nice man in the white coat tells me it really is quite nice where thy are taking me.
Toolman59
However this raises another question, as I understand it,a new Pagefile is generated at Boot up. If this so, can a dual boot system containing containing two XP OSs use the same partition as if it belonged only to the currently booted OS?
Sorry about the previous post, the nice man in the white coat tells me it really is quite nice where thy are taking me.
Toolman59
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
