page file size with 2GB of ram

[vitalbyte]

1Tanker Yep it is not optimal in every case, however should be alright if RAM is huge, like 2 GB. The bottom line is Set a Fixed Size

 

[1Tanker]

what about this idea:

put 3 gigs of ram in a rig, create a ram-drive of the size of 1.5gigs and put the windows page-file on the ram-drive...


would this work?

That should work, but i wouldn't put 3GB in a machine. That would prevent

you from using dual-channel mode. At this point, over 3 GB isn't wise, until

Vista come along. :?

 

[Synergy6]

If you claim never to go over your physical memory then why bother turning off the page file?

Plus just because a program doesn't ask for more memory than the system has available doesn't mean that it couldn't take advantage of more memory if it were available.

---

Again I challenge anyone to come up with a test that shows turning off virtual memory improves performance.

Either that or show me technical info on Windows Virtual Memory Manager that shows that MS chose to implement it in some retarded fashion.

If you compare Linux vs Windows Software RAID you see that sometimes Microsoft does implent some features in "retarded" fashion.

But given how crucial memory management is to the performance of an OS I wouldn't bet on Microsoft getting this one wrong.

I've never gone over 1.5GB. Not a claim, but a fact. On the point of it just helping to have a paging file anyway, no, it doesn't. Any logic will tell you that if a program doesn't need more RAM with 0 paging file, then allowing it free access to the much slower hard disk isn't going to speed things up.

I don't know if there are any scientific studies on the subject. What I do know is that, as someone who never uses even 1.5GB RAM, turning on the page file is a) a waste of my HD space, b) extra wear on my HD if it's used, and c) creating the possibility of an errant memory manager using my haard disk for memory when RAM is available. Simple choice. Whenever I had 1GB RAM, I had a fixed 1GB paging file, and that never filled up either.

I think people are taking the whole "paging file should be 1.5-2x RAM size" far further than it was ever intended to go. It is a useful statistic for those with 128-1024MB of RAM, and it may become useful again in the future. But right now for people with 2GB RAM, with no retail Vista, with no Crysis etc, and (personally at least) no possibility of suddenly becoming a pro video/picture manipulator, the paging file is unnecessary.

Synergy6

 

[linux_0]

If you claim never to go over your physical memory then why bother turning off the page file?

Plus just because a program doesn't ask for more memory than the system has available doesn't mean that it couldn't take advantage of more memory if it were available.

---

Again I challenge anyone to come up with a test that shows turning off virtual memory improves performance.

Either that or show me technical info on Windows Virtual Memory Manager that shows that MS chose to implement it in some retarded fashion.

If you compare Linux vs Windows Software RAID you see that sometimes Microsoft does implent some features in "retarded" fashion.

But given how crucial memory management is to the performance of an OS I wouldn't bet on Microsoft getting this one wrong.

I've never gone over 1.5GB. Not a claim, but a fact. On the point of it just helping to have a paging file anyway, no, it doesn't. Any logic will tell you that if a program doesn't need more RAM with 0 paging file, then allowing it free access to the much slower hard disk isn't going to speed things up.

I don't know if there are any scientific studies on the subject. What I do know is that, as someone who never uses even 1.5GB RAM, turning on the page file is a) a waste of my HD space, b) extra wear on my HD if it's used, and c) creating the possibility of an errant memory manager using my haard disk for memory when RAM is available. Simple choice. Whenever I had 1GB RAM, I had a fixed 1GB paging file, and that never filled up either.

I think people are taking the whole "paging file should be 1.5-2x RAM size" far further than it was ever intended to go. It is a useful statistic for those with 128-1024MB of RAM, and it may become useful again in the future. But right now for people with 2GB RAM, with no retail Vista, with no Crysis etc, and (personally at least) no possibility of suddenly becoming a pro video/picture manipulator, the paging file is unnecessary.

Synergy6



You still need swap except for specialized applications.

windoze will often crash and burn when it does run out of memory.

 

[Synergy6]

a)You still need swap except for specialized applications.

b)windoze will often crash and burn when it does run out of memory.

a) No, I don't. I thought "I've never gone over 1.5GB." might have tipped you off. The very fact I've been running *0* swap for the last 6 months is another clue.

b) My WindowsXP is very stable actually, but thank you for being concerned about it. It's only crashed once, and that was due to a graphics card overclock doing bad things to my PSU. Never had memory or XP -caused crashes. Perhaps this is because, as I tried to state very clearly, I never have run out of memory.

Synergy6

 

[linux_0]

If you claim never to go over your physical memory then why bother turning off the page file?

Plus just because a program doesn't ask for more memory than the system has available doesn't mean that it couldn't take advantage of more memory if it were available.

---

Again I challenge anyone to come up with a test that shows turning off virtual memory improves performance.

Either that or show me technical info on Windows Virtual Memory Manager that shows that MS chose to implement it in some retarded fashion.

If you compare Linux vs Windows Software RAID you see that sometimes Microsoft does implent some features in "retarded" fashion.

But given how crucial memory management is to the performance of an OS I wouldn't bet on Microsoft getting this one wrong.

I've never gone over 1.5GB. Not a claim, but a fact. On the point of it just helping to have a paging file anyway, no, it doesn't. Any logic will tell you that if a program doesn't need more RAM with 0 paging file, then allowing it free access to the much slower hard disk isn't going to speed things up.

I don't know if there are any scientific studies on the subject. What I do know is that, as someone who never uses even 1.5GB RAM, turning on the page file is a) a waste of my HD space, b) extra wear on my HD if it's used, and c) creating the possibility of an errant memory manager using my haard disk for memory when RAM is available. Simple choice. Whenever I had 1GB RAM, I had a fixed 1GB paging file, and that never filled up either.

I think people are taking the whole "paging file should be 1.5-2x RAM size" far further than it was ever intended to go. It is a useful statistic for those with 128-1024MB of RAM, and it may become useful again in the future. But right now for people with 2GB RAM, with no retail Vista, with no Crysis etc, and (personally at least) no possibility of suddenly becoming a pro video/picture manipulator, the paging file is unnecessary.

Synergy6
Try running Photoshop with no pagefile.
Even a 10MB static will do.



Indeed :-D

Photoshop or any app that behaves like it will kill it.

Also imagine a buggy program leaking memory..... horrors!!!!!

Result = BSOD

 

[Synergy6]

The original post. "Playing games and messing around with DVDs is about the extent to what I am doing"

I don't use Photoshop/apps like it, and it sure as hell sounds like the OP is in the same boat. Try answering the question he needs answered, rather than the question you want to answer.

Synergy6

 

[1Tanker]

Also imagine a buggy program leaking memory..... horrors!!!!!

Result = BSOD

Brings back memories of Win98/ME 😱

 

[linux_0]

Also imagine a buggy program leaking memory..... horrors!!!!!

Result = BSOD

Brings back memories of Win98/ME 😱



Indeed.

Some games and apps consistently BSOD under XP but 95/98/ME were much much worse.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

a)You still need swap except for specialized applications.

b)windoze will often crash and burn when it does run out of memory.

a) No, I don't. I thought "I've never gone over 1.5GB." might have tipped you off. The very fact I've been running *0* swap for the last 6 months is another clue.

b) My WindowsXP is very stable actually, but thank you for being concerned about it. It's only crashed once, and that was due to a graphics card overclock doing bad things to my PSU. Never had memory or XP -caused crashes. Perhaps this is because, as I tried to state very clearly, I never have run out of memory.

Synergy6

Another witness here, running w/o page file for about 6 months myself...