Vista 32 - Page file size on systems with lots of RAM

Then you, or someone using your computer, has already changed the default
setting. System managed creates a pagefile about the size of your RAM (mine
is 2,460,942,336 for 2 gig of installed RAM). I have never, in 15 months of
using Vista, had actual pagefile usage above 400 meg.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Lord Takyon" <> wrote in message
news:eEXuGu%...
> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
> news:OvupCf%...
>> If you have insufficient RAM in your system, of course the pagefile may
>> grow. It will have to place the extra entries wherever they fit. Upon a
>> reboot you again have the system pagefile - in one contiguous chunk, if
>> that is what you had previously. Then the pagefile will begin to grow
>> again.
>>
>> The answer is to install more RAM.
>>
>> In 15 months of using Vista I have never had the pagefile out grow it's
>> initial setting. I am using 2 gig of RAM.
>>
>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> The only trouble I found with allowing Vista to manage the page file is
>>> that it becomes fragmented. I have monitored the page file for a while
>>> and Vista makes some pretty strange choices sometimes, for example it
>>> can be sitting idle and after a while Vista would increase the PF, even
>>> if it was at under 20% utilization.
>>>
>>> In the end I just observed how much of the PF I could force to be used
>>> by loading up loads of apps, and then set it to that +50%. So far my
>>> system performance has been massively improved.
>>>
>>> The only drawback is that each system is different, as are the uses, so
>>> any advice would be nothing more than an avenue you could investigate.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
>>> Read this instead.
>>
>
>
> I have 2 Gig of RAM, and the point I was making is the PF would keep on
> growing even when not being used anywhere close to capacity. It would
> also fragment very badly and this did carry over a reboot.
>
> If mine is left to manage itself it creates a tiny PF initially, then it
> will keep adding chunks and these will all be fragmented and NOT be gone
> after a reboot. The only way I found of combating this was to either
> switch off PF and reboot and switch back on etc, or limit it manually,
> which I did.
>
> Did you even read the last sentence I typed?
>
>
> --
> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
> Read this instead.

Richard

Mine's for free <G>!

--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:eO%23fFd%...
>I *make* my pagefile contiguous, wherever I place it. I use PerfectDisk
>and do a boot time defrag. Problem solved.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>

Thanks for the replies guys.

My page file is actually split into two equal parts - each part residing on
SATA hard disks D & E, so its already set up in this way. I've always set a
mimimum size to avoid fragmentation as the file grows and shrinks.

PS - I'm not too worried about the possible waste of hard disk space.


"Richard Urban" wrote:

> As it was with Windows XP, advice is to allow the system to handle the page
> file. It can do it more efficiently and intelligently than you or I can.
>
> The only thing I ever do is to place a 2nd pagefile on another drive on the
> 2nd IDE controller. I find that if the system drive is being used heavily
> that this 2nd pagefile gets most of the work.
>
> A 2nd pagefile on the same drive in a separate partition, or on a 2nd hard
> drive connected to the same drive controller as the system drive gives you a
> net gain of *nothing*.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>
> "Bob H" <> wrote in message
> news:E0C013D5-6227-42FC-BC4D-...
> > This may be a silly question, but here goes:
> >
> > The normal advice used for the minimum Page File size is that it should
> > always be larger than the amount of RAM installed - but I wondered if this
> > still made sense when you have a lot of RAM installed. I'm seeing a lot of
> > posts from people with 3GB or 4GB of RAM, so it seems to be a pertinent
> > issue.
> > Taking my specific example, I have 3 GB of RAM, and 4 GB of Page File - so
> > have a total memory pool of 7 GB - which presumably takes a fair chunk of
> > system resource to manage, and also is more than a 32 bit system should be
> > able to cope with anyway.
> > In short, should that advice be modified.
>
>

"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:uj8Gg2%...
> Then you, or someone using your computer, has already changed the default
> setting. System managed creates a pagefile about the size of your RAM
> (mine is 2,460,942,336 for 2 gig of installed RAM). I have never, in 15
> months of using Vista, had actual pagefile usage above 400 meg.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>
> "Lord Takyon" <> wrote in message
> news:eEXuGu%...
>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
>> news:OvupCf%...
>>> If you have insufficient RAM in your system, of course the pagefile may
>>> grow. It will have to place the extra entries wherever they fit. Upon a
>>> reboot you again have the system pagefile - in one contiguous chunk, if
>>> that is what you had previously. Then the pagefile will begin to grow
>>> again.
>>>
>>> The answer is to install more RAM.
>>>
>>> In 15 months of using Vista I have never had the pagefile out grow it's
>>> initial setting. I am using 2 gig of RAM.
>>>
>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only trouble I found with allowing Vista to manage the page file is
>>>> that it becomes fragmented. I have monitored the page file for a while
>>>> and Vista makes some pretty strange choices sometimes, for example it
>>>> can be sitting idle and after a while Vista would increase the PF, even
>>>> if it was at under 20% utilization.
>>>>
>>>> In the end I just observed how much of the PF I could force to be used
>>>> by loading up loads of apps, and then set it to that +50%. So far my
>>>> system performance has been massively improved.
>>>>
>>>> The only drawback is that each system is different, as are the uses, so
>>>> any advice would be nothing more than an avenue you could investigate.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
>>>> Read this instead.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have 2 Gig of RAM, and the point I was making is the PF would keep on
>> growing even when not being used anywhere close to capacity. It would
>> also fragment very badly and this did carry over a reboot.
>>
>> If mine is left to manage itself it creates a tiny PF initially, then it
>> will keep adding chunks and these will all be fragmented and NOT be gone
>> after a reboot. The only way I found of combating this was to either
>> switch off PF and reboot and switch back on etc, or limit it manually,
>> which I did.
>>
>> Did you even read the last sentence I typed?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
>> Read this instead.
>


My PF usage does not hit that either unless I absolutely thrash the machine
deliberately. My Vista was a clean install, it initially set PF for 750
Meg, every time, and by the time I have finished it has hit around 3 Gig,
even if I just boot the machine and leave it inactive for an hour. The
worst of it is that it will be in many pieces, despite having a huge amount
of spare space to work in.

Anyway, I have no desire to discuss this, that was not my intent, I was
merely offering advice to the OP.

My machine, after some tweaking and clearing out unneeded stuff, finally
works as I wish it too. It is possible something I have done has triggered
this behavior, although I doubt it as it has been evident after 2 clean
installs.

--
Can't think of a sig at the moment.
Read this instead.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 15:23:58 +0100, "Lord Takyon"
>"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message

>> If you have insufficient RAM in your system, of course the pagefile may
>> grow. It will have to place the extra entries wherever they fit.

If pagefile was used only for virtual memory, this would be the end of
it. A task load of 2G would need a 1.5G page files with 512M
(assuming it will be able to cope with that RAM:swap ratio), and 512M
page file with 1.5G RAM, etc.

It's the above logic that leads me to use 512M pagefile for most XP
installations, irrespective of whether they have 128M, 256M, 512M or
more RAM. But I also take steps to ensure the page file is not being
used for other purposes such as fast user switching or full RAM crash
dumps, as those scale up with RAM, rather than down as swapping would.

>>> The only trouble I found with allowing Vista to manage the page file is
>>> that it becomes fragmented. I have monitored the page file for a while
>>> and Vista makes some pretty strange choices sometimes, for example it can
>>> be sitting idle and after a while Vista would increase the PF, even if it
>>> was at under 20% utilization.

Aside from fast user switching and full crash dumps, Vista may use the
pagefile as a dumping ground for other underfootware stuff. I don't
know the OS well enough to know if this applies to contenders such as
background defrag, shadow copy, indexing, thumbnailing etc.

>I have 2 Gig of RAM, and the point I was making is the PF would keep on
>growing even when not being used anywhere close to capacity. It would also
>fragment very badly and this did carry over a reboot.

>If mine is left to manage itself it creates a tiny PF initially, then it
>will keep adding chunks and these will all be fragmented and NOT be gone
>after a reboot. The only way I found of combating this was to either switch
>off PF and reboot and switch back on etc, or limit it manually, which I did.

It's hard to interpret the impact of fragmenting the page file. On
the face of it, it would slow things down if reading the page file
from one end to the other, but that's rarely how it would be used.

Let's make a few assumptions (and have these contested by readers
please, if they are wrong!):
- in-RAM material that has not changed, is:
- free to page out, as it doesn't need to be written back to HD
- cheap to reload from the original source file
- in-RAM material that has changed, is:
- costly to page out, as it has to be written back to HD
- may be written to pagefile rather than original location
- ultimately may need to be copied to original location

If this is true, then paging can be expected to first purge material
that does not need to be written back to disk, and only when that's
all done, will it start on altered RAM contents that do have to be
written to disk before something else can page into that RAM area.

That implies page file access will be mixed with page-back reads from
unchanged but paged-out files, which will include original OS code
that would usually be at the "front" of the disk unless updated, then
it could be anywhere, unless relocated by defrag.

It will also be mixed with write-paging back to temp files (if not
pagefile itself) that may be at the "far side" of the disk.

If both of the above are true, then the winning strategy might be to
fragment the page file into the file mass, especially if the paging
manager is smart enough to page using areas of the file that lie
closest to what is being paged.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

The method of creating a contiguous pagefile you describe only works if
you have something like 60% free disk space. If less. when you recreate
the pagefile and reboot. the process of rebooting fragments other files
which
are written first into the space where you expect to have a contiguous
pagefile.


--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Lord Takyon" <> wrote in message
news:eZ1RQo$...
> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
> news:uj8Gg2%...
>> Then you, or someone using your computer, has already changed the
>> default setting. System managed creates a pagefile about the size of
>> your RAM (mine is 2,460,942,336 for 2 gig of installed RAM). I have
>> never, in 15 months of using Vista, had actual pagefile usage above
>> 400 meg.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Lord Takyon" <> wrote in message
>> news:eEXuGu%...
>>> "Richard Urban" <> wrote in
>>> message news:OvupCf%...
>>>> If you have insufficient RAM in your system, of course the pagefile
>>>> may grow. It will have to place the extra entries wherever they
>>>> fit. Upon a reboot you again have the system pagefile - in one
>>>> contiguous chunk, if that is what you had previously. Then the
>>>> pagefile will begin to grow again.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is to install more RAM.
>>>>
>>>> In 15 months of using Vista I have never had the pagefile out grow
>>>> it's initial setting. I am using 2 gig of RAM.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The only trouble I found with allowing Vista to manage the page
>>>>> file is that it becomes fragmented. I have monitored the page
>>>>> file for a while and Vista makes some pretty strange choices
>>>>> sometimes, for example it can be sitting idle and after a while
>>>>> Vista would increase the PF, even if it was at under 20%
>>>>> utilization.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end I just observed how much of the PF I could force to be
>>>>> used by loading up loads of apps, and then set it to that +50%.
>>>>> So far my system performance has been massively improved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only drawback is that each system is different, as are the
>>>>> uses, so any advice would be nothing more than an avenue you could
>>>>> investigate.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
>>>>> Read this instead.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have 2 Gig of RAM, and the point I was making is the PF would keep
>>> on growing even when not being used anywhere close to capacity. It
>>> would also fragment very badly and this did carry over a reboot.
>>>
>>> If mine is left to manage itself it creates a tiny PF initially,
>>> then it will keep adding chunks and these will all be fragmented and
>>> NOT be gone after a reboot. The only way I found of combating this
>>> was to either switch off PF and reboot and switch back on etc, or
>>> limit it manually, which I did.
>>>
>>> Did you even read the last sentence I typed?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
>>> Read this instead.
>>
>
>
> My PF usage does not hit that either unless I absolutely thrash the
> machine deliberately. My Vista was a clean install, it initially set
> PF for 750 Meg, every time, and by the time I have finished it has hit
> around 3 Gig, even if I just boot the machine and leave it inactive
> for an hour. The worst of it is that it will be in many pieces,
> despite having a huge amount of spare space to work in.
>
> Anyway, I have no desire to discuss this, that was not my intent, I
> was merely offering advice to the OP.
>
> My machine, after some tweaking and clearing out unneeded stuff,
> finally works as I wish it too. It is possible something I have done
> has triggered this behavior, although I doubt it as it has been
> evident after 2 clean installs.
>
> --
> Can't think of a sig at the moment.
> Read this instead.

thats why i run a mac os10 get sidebar ... ect on 1 gig ram and it can do
anything this piece of crap vista can do when does this thing go final this
beta is buggy ooops it is final love the millions of post of trouble with it
lololol
"Richard Urban" wrote:

> If you have insufficient RAM in your system, of course the pagefile may
> grow. It will have to place the extra entries wherever they fit. Upon a
> reboot you again have the system pagefile - in one contiguous chunk, if that
> is what you had previously. Then the pagefile will begin to grow again.
>
> The answer is to install more RAM.
>
> In 15 months of using Vista I have never had the pagefile out grow it's
> initial setting. I am using 2 gig of RAM.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>
> "Lord Takyon" <> wrote in message
> news:uLuAOW%...
> > "Richard G. Harper" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> The normal advice for the pagefile (at least that given by folks who
> >> actually know what they're doing, anyway) is to leave it alone. There's
> >> no advantage to artificially making it larger since it will only result
> >> in wasted disk space and no improvement in performance. There's no
> >> advantage in forcing it smaller since that could result in programs
> >> crashing due to a lack of virtual memory for them to use.
> >>
> >> The very old and very incorrect "Set the pagefile to 2.5 times memory"
> >> advice doesn't even come from Windows at all - but from Unix based
> >> operating systems.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User]
> >> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> >> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> >> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> >> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> "Bob H" <> wrote in message
> >> news:E0C013D5-6227-42FC-BC4D-...
> >>> This may be a silly question, but here goes:
> >>>
> >>> The normal advice used for the minimum Page File size is that it should
> >>> always be larger than the amount of RAM installed - but I wondered if
> >>> this
> >>> still made sense when you have a lot of RAM installed. I'm seeing a lot
> >>> of
> >>> posts from people with 3GB or 4GB of RAM, so it seems to be a pertinent
> >>> issue.
> >>> Taking my specific example, I have 3 GB of RAM, and 4 GB of Page File -
> >>> so
> >>> have a total memory pool of 7 GB - which presumably takes a fair chunk
> >>> of
> >>> system resource to manage, and also is more than a 32 bit system should
> >>> be
> >>> able to cope with anyway.
> >>> In short, should that advice be modified.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > The only trouble I found with allowing Vista to manage the page file is
> > that it becomes fragmented. I have monitored the page file for a while
> > and Vista makes some pretty strange choices sometimes, for example it can
> > be sitting idle and after a while Vista would increase the PF, even if it
> > was at under 20% utilization.
> >
> > In the end I just observed how much of the PF I could force to be used by
> > loading up loads of apps, and then set it to that +50%. So far my system
> > performance has been massively improved.
> >
> > The only drawback is that each system is different, as are the uses, so
> > any advice would be nothing more than an avenue you could investigate.
> >
> > --
> > Can't think of a sig at the moment.
> > Read this instead.
>
>

Hi,

I don't know a great deal about all this pagefile stuff but from an
layperson's perspective somethign strikes me as odd, and it is this, from my
personal experience:

You have a Windows system with 1GB RAM, it creates a 1gb page file and runs
your apps alright, bit slow with many things running. So one day you upgrade,
so now you have a Windows system with 2GB RAM and it creates a pagefile of
2GB, this gives you 4GB of mappable memory and your apps are flying, the
pagefile is very occasionally used, you can have the entire Adobe suite open
and the computer is still responsive.

So if you upgrade to 4GB of RAM, surely there is no need for the page file
at all?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you have moved from a system with 4GB mappable
memory (2GB RAM, 2GB PF) to a system with 4GB mappable memory (4GB RAM) what
is the problem?

Surely there must be a performance advantage in forcing Windows to use just
RAM?

Seb.



"Bob H" wrote:

> Thanks for the replies guys.
>
> My page file is actually split into two equal parts - each part residing on
> SATA hard disks D & E, so its already set up in this way. I've always set a
> mimimum size to avoid fragmentation as the file grows and shrinks.
>
> PS - I'm not too worried about the possible waste of hard disk space.
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
> > As it was with Windows XP, advice is to allow the system to handle the page
> > file. It can do it more efficiently and intelligently than you or I can.
> >
> > The only thing I ever do is to place a 2nd pagefile on another drive on the
> > 2nd IDE controller. I find that if the system drive is being used heavily
> > that this 2nd pagefile gets most of the work.
> >
> > A 2nd pagefile on the same drive in a separate partition, or on a 2nd hard
> > drive connected to the same drive controller as the system drive gives you a
> > net gain of *nothing*.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Richard Urban
> > Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> > (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
> >
> >
> >
> > "Bob H" <> wrote in message
> > news:E0C013D5-6227-42FC-BC4D-...
> > > This may be a silly question, but here goes:
> > >
> > > The normal advice used for the minimum Page File size is that it should
> > > always be larger than the amount of RAM installed - but I wondered if this
> > > still made sense when you have a lot of RAM installed. I'm seeing a lot of
> > > posts from people with 3GB or 4GB of RAM, so it seems to be a pertinent
> > > issue.
> > > Taking my specific example, I have 3 GB of RAM, and 4 GB of Page File - so
> > > have a total memory pool of 7 GB - which presumably takes a fair chunk of
> > > system resource to manage, and also is more than a 32 bit system should be
> > > able to cope with anyway.
> > > In short, should that advice be modified.
> >
> >

I have 4gB of RAM (on a 32 bit system) and have a 1 gB pagefile on a separate
drive (static size) for compatibility with a few programs. I have not
experimented without a pagefile in Vista - but in XP I got along quite well
without one until a program insisted on it.

So, in short, the pagefile size is dependent on how your programs use it.
And, IMO, using a static size to the pagefile reduces the resources needed to
manage it. Setting it to the minimum size required by the programs that
you're using will be the most efficient - but that will take some work to
determine as it's not commonly stated in the System Requirements for a
program.

- John


"Bob H" wrote:

> This may be a silly question, but here goes:
>
> The normal advice used for the minimum Page File size is that it should
> always be larger than the amount of RAM installed - but I wondered if this
> still made sense when you have a lot of RAM installed. I'm seeing a lot of
> posts from people with 3GB or 4GB of RAM, so it seems to be a pertinent issue.
> Taking my specific example, I have 3 GB of RAM, and 4 GB of Page File - so
> have a total memory pool of 7 GB - which presumably takes a fair chunk of
> system resource to manage, and also is more than a 32 bit system should be
> able to cope with anyway.
> In short, should that advice be modified.