Question RE: Swap/Page file for my PC w/ 8GB
#1
Posted 12 January 2008 - 10:19 PM
Currently I have it set to the main RAID 0 array (Vista 64) and is 3000MB in size (non expandable). Because I have so much memory, is it a waste to even have this enabled? If it is advised, should it indeed be on the RAID 0 array which is the fastest drive or on my other RAID 0 array for gaming.
Tim
#2
Posted 12 January 2008 - 11:37 PM
If you do somehow manage to run out of RAM and swap space, increase it a little - but I really doubt that will happen. Go ahead and set the DisablePagingExecutive and LargeSystemCache registry tweaks as well, if you have not already.
EDIT: Oh yeah, put the pagefile on whichever drive Vista is NOT on, unless the system drive is more than twice as fast (or would that be four times as fast? Just put it on the other drive - it will be little used anyway.)
This post has been edited by DrewWinters: 12 January 2008 - 11:40 PM
#3
Posted 13 January 2008 - 04:24 AM
i change the pagefile to 200mb start size to 4500mb Finish size
the system dont use it
i guess its use the hibernation's file instead
everest info:
Paging File C:\pagefile.sys
Initial / Maximum Size 200 MB / 4591 MB
Current Size 200 MB
taskmgr info:
756M / 3219M
btw even the system is heavily working the pagefile is not used fully
This post has been edited by aviv00: 13 January 2008 - 04:31 AM
#4
Posted 14 January 2008 - 12:04 AM
Even with 2 GB, I never once had any problems working with no paging file. I run typical desktop applications, audio/video editing software, and games. I've even worked with Gigastudio (software synth) and multiple-GB sample libraries, which is a memory-intensive application.
So, I think with 8 GB, you are more than safe. If you want to be 100% sure that you will never have any problem whatsoever, then I guess the best thing to do is give yourself a small paging file... but I have yet to encounter one of these programs that "expects" a paging file regardless of the amount of RAM. The only minor exception to this is Photoshop (at least older versions, like CS1 and earlier), which complains about the lack of a paging file upon startup, but runs perfectly fine after clicking "OK" and ignoring the error.
#5
Posted 15 January 2008 - 03:03 PM
Also, Windows itself warns that it "may not records details" if a system crash occurs if a pagefile is not present. I've not run without a pagefile when my system was unstable, so I haven't tested this.
One more note: if you use a program to test your memory (like 64-bit Prime95) it may intentionally use up all your available RAM - without a pagefile this may cause a system crash.
All this to say: GetCool is mostly right - but there really are a few programs/situations that will not work without a pagefile - but they are rare. I ran without a pagefile when XP was new and I had 512mb of RAM: it took me a year before I had trouble with anything. If your system is not mission-critical (sounds like a gaming machine to me) then you'll be fine without a pagefile; it won't destroy anything. If you have trouble, just add "turn page file back on" to your list of troubleshooting steps. Windows seems pretty smart about not paging important things anyway, so it won't make much difference in performance one way or the other. Best of luck!
This post has been edited by DrewWinters: 15 January 2008 - 03:04 PM
#6
Posted 15 January 2008 - 05:21 PM
i've run all versions of windows since 2000 without the paging file (when i've had machines with enough memory to do so that is!) and the only ever problem i've encoutered was that quake 4 (demo) on xp64 run out of memory and windows just popped up with a box saying increasing swapfile size, system became totally unresponsible for a few minutes whilst it did this and then shoved lots of memory in it, after that run fine, although had to disable the pageing file again! (was running with 1.5gig of ram, and quake 4 demanded another 300mb....all i did was click ultra settings to see what would happen!)
the only real reason I see to turn on the paging file in this day and age is for bluescreen's to dump the kernal to file for diagnostics.
Its refreshing to see people post that it will not damage anything!
#7
Posted 16 January 2008 - 06:57 AM
#8
Posted 18 January 2008 - 10:49 AM
This post has been edited by DrewWinters: 18 January 2008 - 10:49 AM
#9
Posted 18 January 2008 - 11:21 AM



Help
Back to top










