Option to disable pagefile?

[jmbattle]

Yes, another 2gb user here. An option to disable the pagefile would be most appreciated - it is one less thing to have to do post-setup.

Cheers,

James

x

[Muppet Hunter]

This is worth a read as there's a lot of rubbish talked on the subject - Understanding Virtual Memory and Running XP with the pagefile disabled. Something worth considering is putting the pagefile on a separate hard drive.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Muppet Hunter

[Kelsenellenelvian]

I vote NO!!!

[newsposter]

Guys, a few things happen if no paging file is force-set.

The kernel will 'page' .dll and .exe code to 'backing store'. The kernel virtual memory manager will ALWAYS use backing store. If there is no page file, then real memory is used. There is no way to change this, no mystery reg hack, nothing.

As real memory fills up (commit charge), the kernel will actually start to unload more and more .dll and .exe code to make room for newly required pages. But you don't get all of the memory back. 'Stubs' are left in real memory so that the VMM can go back and actually find the needed .dll and .exe code.

As memory usage approaches the commit charge limits, a runaway condition can occur where the kernel is sucking up a significant percentage of CPU time unloading .dll and .exe and then reloading them from disk as program and user demands are made. One thing a paging file provides in this case is a structured and VMM-controlled place to retreive .dll and .exe code from. Much faster than going through the usual code loading process.

Another condition that will occur is memory fragmentation. All of the load/unload/stub activity chops real memory up pretty badly. You might think no big deal, but with an Intel system (no hardware memory management) the VMM code (and thus the CPU) has to manage all of the fragmented memory addresses to find spaces big enough to reload code. This is another unnecessary waste of CPU cycles. By the way, it's the use of dedicated hardware memory management that has given AMD a performance lead in the x86 space. Intels gain on the AMD perfomance numbers are mostly from raw CPU clock speed and efficiencies. However, Intel has seen the light on MMUs. The next generation of Intel CPUs will have an on-board MMU and use a Hyperchannel-like data pipeline to connect things up. But we digress.

NT/XP/Vista/Server200x kernels really need paging file to be at least 1:1 with real memory. You might not like the behavor of the kernel virtual memory manager, but it is what it is.

It's the technical details of how the VMM works along with a (minor) financial consideration why small machines like the Eee come with Linux and not XP. Just to accomodate a discounted OEM license of say, $25- would require the addition of a $50- hard drive which in turn would significantly reduce battery run time and increase boot time.

The people who design these new-gen small 'laptops' really do know what they are doing.

Edited March 21, 2008 by newsposter

[divi2323]

NT/XP/Vista/Server200x kernels really need paging file to be at least 1:1 with real memory. You might not like the behavor of the kernel virtual memory manager, but it is what it is.

Has anyone maybe considered loading a RAM drive and using that as the swap space? I admit up front i'm WELL out of my comfort zone when talking about the internals of why OS's need swap space on a disk.

[TranceEnergy]

That works quite nice, ive done it. However, only as an experiment, usually have it always disabled/deleted.

Photoshop absolutely loves having temp space on ramdisk. But no one who isnt capable of tweaking windows right should run windoze wo pagefile. Generally a small pagefile at least 400/800mb pagefile is ok. I however, disable it always.

[JAB Creations]

I always build systems with more RAM then they need. I'm voting to have the option please. Adobe Photoshop disobeys the system preference and creates it's own page file. I think Adobe should be smacked upside the head for that.

[newsposter]

Photoshop will ONLY use its scratch file as an auxillary paging space if YOU set the system paging space too small. As Photoshop is RAM humgry, even with 4Gb systems (system commit can be many multiples of real memory) having a system paging file BIG enough (as per Adobes recommendation, not your belief in how the Windows VMM works) is ESSENTIAL.

Otherwise, the scratch file is used as a clipboard/image working space ONLY.

Also, if you are using the Bigger Tiles plugins, real ram usage goes way up, thusly system page space usage goes way up as well.

So if YOU deliberately set your system page space too small, YOU have caused Photoshop to page unnecessarilly to the PS/CS scratch file. And if PS has to use scratch space as paging space, it will also try to grow the scratch file to accomodate the new requirement. This, in conjunction with an overloaded page space, really kills hard drive performance as you now have a constant 4- or 5-way hit (program code, image data, page space, scratch spacex2) hit on a hard drive. Not too smart.

It helps to actually know of what you speak.....

Edited May 24, 2008 by newsposter

[TranceEnergy]

I hope you are not reffering to me newsposter? I'm afraid you are jumping to conclusions, there are several shades of gray here, how much ram you actually have, what os, and if any other things have been modified, as in tweaked. Also this has already been tested to death and proved by people that gave you Driver Net.

[newsposter]

*yawn*

Have it your way.

The Windows VMM doesn't work in shades of grey.

[TranceEnergy]

Just for laughs i set my pagefile to 32mb, nice number, and photoshop hasnt complained yet, nor any other program fyi.

Im not saying one should simply disable the pagefile and dont do anything else to have it disabled, but i do disable it.

Photoshop doesnt page a **** thing here, i guess its happy with 8gb ram atm.

And 3d, VMM does work in shades of gray, but as far as reading posts goes, you're -10 newsposter.

And please dont make assumptions and base your opinions as fact.

[newsposter]

as opposed to being a post whore and replying to every thread on the board?

A 32 bit windows OS will not address more than 4 Gb of ram, but the practical limit is closer to 3.5 Gb

**yawn**

Edited May 27, 2008 by newsposter

[TranceEnergy]

*ignore*

Xp x64bit doesnt have that limit. And yet again you are still stating something that isnt the truth. Truth is xp 32bit can use its 3.2gb, interpreted differently so decide 3.2 3.3 or 3.5 (not) if u will, however IGP and similiar will still be able to use rest of memory, afaik the upper limit goes somewhere around 4 then counting system and igp, system memory being shared.

As for posting goes, nothing wrong with being a bit active.

Calling me a post whore is a bit excessive i think.

[TranceEnergy]

fast way to remove pagefile from a fresh windows install.

add cmd /R %Source%tweaks.bat

which starts regedit.exe /s %source%tweaks\disablePF.reg

---disablepf.reg---sof---

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management]

"NonPagedPoolQuota"=dword:00000000

"NonPagedPoolSize"=dword:00000000

"PagedPoolQuota"=dword:00000000

"PagedPoolSize"=dword:00000000

"PagingFiles"=hex(7):00

---disablepf.reg---eof----

tested and works perfectly here. edit: forgot to add that pagefile.sys is still created, but it is not active. It can be deleted upon first login.

And that can again be done in an automated task.

Edited June 16, 2008 by TranceEnergy

[Orioon]

sorry for pushing this,

but I have a few questions:

imagine the following scenario:

you have a 2gb drive, windows eats 1,5gb, default minimung pagefile size is 768mb

what would happen, as used space and minimum pagefile size exceed the physical hard drive space?

I really nead to pagefile with 8gb of ram, I am unable to fill them completely

(of course I am using a 64bit OS)

So would it still be possible to install windows or will it crash? (if minimum drive space disabled)