PDA

View Full Version : Size of Paging file



FrankSG
03-15-2004, 07:39 PM
From what I've read, MS recommends that the Paging file in Win XP be at least 1.5 time the amount of RAM that you have. I've read where some have said that a good rule-of-thumb is 2.5 times the amount of RAM. If what they say is true, then the more RAM you have, the bigger the size of your Paging or Swap file. I'd like some feedback on this because it doesn't seem to make sense to me. It seems that the more RAM you have the less you would need for the paging file. Now there certainly could be something here that I don't understand. What are some of the thoughts of some of the members here?
~Frank~

YODA74
03-15-2004, 07:57 PM
These guy's explane it very well
http://www.theeldergeek.com/paging_file.htm

FrankSG
03-15-2004, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by YODA74
These guy's explane it very well
http://www.theeldergeek.com/paging_file.htm
That was interesting, YODA. I went to that web-site and read what he had to say. It seems that Windows will always use some of the Paging file even if you have tons of RAM. I guess it's like when I look at a piece of apple pie after I eat a big meal. I look at the pie and say to my wife, "You know--I really don't need that piece of pie. But, what the heck--since it's there put on a big scoop of ice-cream and I'll have it anyway":) On that web-site he explained what some of the readings are when you bring up the Task Manager and click on the performance tab. Here's what's interesting. I have a total of 512MB of RAM installed on my computer. I have the Paging file set for 500MB. I know that's not 1.5 times the amount of RAM that Windows sets as default, but from what I discovered, it's plenty for me.
When I looked at the figures that were displayed when I clicked on the Performance tab, it showed that my system was using only 82MB of physical memory and 27MB of virtual memory. The fact that even though I still had 430MB of physical memory free, Windows still used up a little bit (27MB) of the virtual memory. While I was looking at the performance, I opened up my Word Processor, my Spread Sheet program and a Photo editor. It, of course showed where it was using more memory, but not a whole lot more of the Paging file. So, all in all, it seems that the 500MB Paging file I have is more than enough. By the way, I have the Initial and the Maximum size set the same--both at 500MB so that it doesn't have to keep re-sizing itself. Whether that's the right or the wrong way to do it depends on who you talk to, I guess.

Paul Komski
03-16-2004, 07:22 PM
It seems paradoxical that the more RAM you have the bigger the paging file is recommneded to be. One of the reasons for this is that in the event of a crash the VM must be greater than the RAM in order to hold a copy of it in the event of a crash causing a "RAM Dump". This can then be debugged later to help troubleshoot the problem. If you don't know about and never would debug such a file then it is not worth consideration.

Setting a fixed size paging file should cut down on the defragmentation of the drive(s) in question - and this is probably more important on FAT than on NTFS partitions.

If you set the paging file too small and WinXP requires a bit more in order to function properly, it will over-ride the VM settings you have set and re-allocate itself additional paging file space - in my experience anyways.

Splitting the paging file across partitions will generally help rather than hinder performance since the various bits of space are allocated intelligently.

Abbadon
03-17-2004, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by Paul Komski
Setting a fixed size paging file should cut down on the defragmentation of the drive(s) in question



Splitting the paging file across partitions will generally help rather than hinder performance since the various bits of space are allocated intelligently.

These two are connected as well I believe. Having your page file on a seperate partition decreases the defragmentation of your os partition enourmously. I have a 1gb partition that is my paging file and I hardly ever have to defrag my os-partition.

FrankSG
03-17-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Paul Komski
It seems paradoxical that the more RAM you have the bigger the paging file is recommneded to be. One of the reasons for this is that in the event of a crash the VM must be greater than the RAM in order to hold a copy of it in the event of a crash causing a "RAM Dump". This can then be debugged later to help troubleshoot the problem. If you don't know about and never would debug such a file then it is not worth consideration.

Thanks, Paul--that seem like a reasonable explaintion...maybe Bill Gates does know more that I do.:D