Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Radish

Windows 7: Possible, Advisable, to Disable the Page File?

Recommended Posts

OS = Windows 7 x64 SP1

 

Hi,

 

I intend getting more RAM for my system, basically because I want to use a large ramdisk. When I do the upgrade I'll have 16GB of RAM. 10GB of that for a ramdisk and the remaining 6GB for the system. I'm thinking that it used to be the case that Microsoft recommended 1.5 times the amount of RAM installed for a page file. However, that advice was from the year dot and things have changed these days when people routinely install amounts of RAM that would have been unheard of years ago. Certainly for the last few years I've just set the page file to a fixed size equal to the amount of RAM installed and have never noticed any problems with that.

 

So, my questions are:

 

1) With the amount of RAM I intend to install would it be safe to just disable the page file completely?

 

2) If it isn't advisable to completely disable the page file what would be the recommended mimimum fixed size for the page file?

 

3) Would disabling the page file lead to an increase in speed of the system?

 

I think I should add that I don't do things on my system that really stress the system. Nowadays I just use my home computer for mundane stuff. Certainly I don't do high powered gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you believe you should disable the page file?  Installing more RAM will likely help, but the best general advice is to just leave the page file alone.  There are some things the system uses it for that are not a result of running short of RAM.

 

Also, what makes you feel you will increase performance by using a RAMDISK?  Your file system already provides you with RAM caching, which becomes quite effective if you have a lot of RAM.  There's a setting you can throw - "Turn off Windows write-cache buffer flushing on the device" - that makes the file system cache fully write-back without waits as well, improving performance of most things that write to the disk.

 

Since in general it sounds like you are striving for increased system responsiveness, may I suggest - if you haven't already done so - migrating your system to use SSD storage.  THAT is the single biggest thing you can do nowadays to increase the responsiveness of a system.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pagefile has two main uses:

a. to "help" in case of high RAM usage (more than available RAM)

b. to make a dump of memory in case of crash

 

Some programs however, as an example some Adobe ones, will *want*  the presence of a pagefile in order to even start.

 

There are three theories on which everyone is arguing about since years:

1) the pagefile is better left alone and MS (actually the Windows OS) can manage it fine

2) the pagefile makes little sense if there is *enough* RAM but since it is needed by some program the best thing is to have one FIXED size (NOT system managed) as small as possible.

3) the pagefile makes no sense whatsoever if there is *enough* RAM

 

Since I don't use any program that actually wants a pagefile I have run Windows 2K and XP systems without a pagefile just fine, JFYI:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/156944-delete-not-clear-pagefile-at-shutdown/

but it's not something that should be done at home.

 

Making a Dynamic pagefile makes anyway very little (please read as "no") sense.

 

If you believe that you need a full RAM dump on crash you need to set it's fixed size to at least the size of RAM the system has.

Please understand how all the people that can actually use the info in a several Gb RAM dump for troubleshooting can be counted on your fingers.

 

The good ol' rule of the thumb about 1.5 to 2.5x the amount of RAM makes no sense whatsoever (it was accurate enough when systems had 128, 256 or 512 Mb of RAM, but not nowadays with 3 or more GB of RAM).

 

Given that on the same modern machine that has *enough* RAM there is also *enough* space on hard disk, a FIXED size pagefile 500 Mb or 1 Gb in size is more than enough (unless you really-really want to save space on hard disk) but making one the size of the RAM wouldn't make any harm (if not taking up a few more Gb's), and as well using a "magic formula" like 1.5 x RAM will do the same, only taking even some more space on disk.

 

Still given that the machine has *enough* RAM, there will be NO difference whatsoever in performance with *any* of the settings, the pagefile will never be actually used if not in case of crash.

 

The advice to set it as fixed derives from the fact that in some cases of crash a dynamic pagefile will expand possibly overwriting some areas of the disk where some data needed for recovery resides (a very remote possibility, but still a possibility) and anyway it will take more time to crash (while you can't do anything about it).

 

JFYI, there are people that believe to be smart to put the pagefile on a RAMdisk (on systems with plenty of RAM), something that, in the words of Mark Russinovich, is ridiculous:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1193401/why-it-is-bad-to-store-the-page-file-on-a-ram-disk

 

The new rule of the thumb is "try the system, if you never hit the max amount of RAM you have you are good to go, if you consistently go over it, add more RAM, settings of the pagefile make not any difference in real life if there is *enough* RAM".

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the responses. I did go and read http://www.overclock.net/t/1193401/why-it-is-bad-to-store-the-page-file-on-a-ram-disk (yes all thirty pages of it). God, the range of opinion there is breathtaking. There is everything from don't touch the page file; to only use a fixed size page file; to completely disable the page file; to putting a small page file to ramdisk; to doing away with the page file completely or putting a small page file to a ramdisk because you are using a SSD!

 

Having read that, and noting the range of differing opinion, I've decided that I might just as well experiment and see what works out okay for me. There is no way that I want to start involving myself in using a SSD - that is well beyond my computing needs so I might as well just save myself the expense.

 

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with jaclaz on this one.  I tested my Vista and XP x64 installations by running simultaneously the most applications I could possibly want to run at once.  I did it with two 1 gb page files (one on each drive), and without paging at all.  Without paging I still had a hard time going beyond 5 gb or RAM usage.  I loaded up my audio editor with dozens of wave files, opened two browser instances with about 50 tabs each, office apps with four or five docs and spreadsheets, you name it.  Performance was nearly the same.

 

I will say that my workstation still seemed to run faster without paging, but I had less free memory of course.  I'd probably be "safer" with a page file, but I'll never near the limit.

 

Apparently, paging can make meory use more efficient by placing memory address and data pointers in the page file for quick acccess.  But I figure, if it places that in RAM too, all the better.

 

And I really agree that a memory dump will only be useful to a handful of people, and I don't know any of them.  :P

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myself I have always set ram on any of my machines that have more than six gigs to a 1gb fixed size page file. Small enough to not be noticed and doesn't ever cause fragmentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I really agree that a memory dump will only be useful to a handful of people, and I don't know any of them.  :P

Well, I've got good news for you: you actually do know two of them, you just didn't know you do! :)

They're MagicAndre1981 and cluberti. I hope you never need their help, but if you ever do, now you know whom to ask. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no way that I want to start involving myself in using a SSD - that is well beyond my computing needs so I might as well just save myself the expense.

 

You should re-think that.  What's the downside?

 

SSD storage is cheap nowadays, and the responsiveness of the very same computer running from HDD and SSD is night and day.

 

FYI, I have 6 SSDs in RAID 0 my main workstation and 2 SSDs in RAID 0 in my small business server.  Once you run a system from SSD storage and gargantuan I/O speeds with near-zero latency, you begin to understand what the original designers of virtual memory systems were dreaming of.  Such a system just doesn't bog down.  And you'll never, ever be able to stand to go back to an HDD-based system.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've got good news for you: you actually do know two of them, you just didn't know you do! :)

They're MagicAndre1981 and cluberti. I hope you never need their help, but if you ever do, now you know whom to ask. :yes:

Yep :thumbup:

... and when they happen to discuss the matter on a same thread, it becomes an useful resource to calculate an appropriate size of the pageflie (fixed, NOT dynamic) if you actually want/need a full dump:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/151195-frequent-but-inconclusive-bsods/

 

 

 

You should re-think that.  What's the downside?

I would guess a few benjamins changing hands :unsure:

 

FYI, I have 6 SSDs in RAID 0 my main workstation and 2 SSDs in RAID 0 in my small business server.  Once you run a system from SSD storage and gargantuan I/O speeds with near-zero latency, you begin to understand what the original designers of virtual memory systems were dreaming of.  Such a system just doesn't bog down.  And you'll never, ever be able to stand to go back to an HDD-based system.

Just in case   ;):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0378194/quotes?item=qt0335291

You know, I've always liked that word... 'gargantuan'... so rarely have an opportunity to use it in a sentence. 

 

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would guess a few benjamins changing hands :unsure:

 

 

Sure, just don't lose sight of the fact that the thread started with "I intend getting more RAM".

 

FYI, I bought 3 120 GB SSDs from eBay last month for $45 each.  They're not exactly worth their weight in gold.

 

People who have not used an SSD-equipped system often don't understand the potential for the increase of the level of responsiveness.  I perceive that's what this thread is about.

 

But hey, I understand.  People mostly have to learn things for themselves.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have not used an SSD-equipped system often don't understand the potential for the increase of the level of responsiveness.  I perceive that's what this thread is about.

 

But hey, I understand.  People mostly have to learn things for themselves.

 

Well, to be fair, people who have not used RAMDISK's (which I perceive is what this thread is about :unsure:) often don't understand the potential for the further increase of the level of responsiveness.

 

Of course such a setup has it's own drawbacks, unlike the switch from conventional HDD's to SSD's which is perfectly "transparent" and surely it is much more costly on a per Gb base.

 

Should you have some (several) spare C-notes, you can do with it something really nice (JFYI):

http://www.bjorn3d.com/2013/01/ramdisks-maximizing-high-capacity-ram/

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, my main interest in using a large ramdisk doesn't really concern performance but wear on the HDD. (Though if I got an increase in performance because of using a ramdisk then fine, I'd be happy with that too.)

 

Mostly I want to use a large ramdisk for downloading into and seeding torrents - which is, as far as I understand, is pretty wearing on an HDD. My previous computer which I had for many years over that time had multiple HDD fails and, as best as I could work out, that always seemed connected to the partition that I would save torrents to.

 

Years ago I used to obsess about performance, but not now. Computers nowadays are pretty well fast enough to do most things at a fair pace and I'm of an age now that I don't mind waiting a second or two for something to happen - the world isn't going to fall on my head if things don't happen instantaneously. I kind of chuckle now at my previous self and smile at the way that I learned a valuable lesson in my own time. Bliss. :sneaky:

 

I can though and do appreciate that computer pro's do obsess about performance - their jobs rely on it and without their concern there would be no real improvement over time for us all. So more power to them and their concerns - they do us all good in the long run. :thumbup  Just realise that not everyone needs to share that obsession and it's possible for learning to have more than one outcome - it depends on where you're at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, to be fair, people who have not used RAMDISK's (which I perceive is what this thread is about :unsure:) often don't understand the potential for the further increase of the level of responsiveness.

 

 

Heh, that's kind of like the difference between using Nitrous Oxide in an engine and just having an engine that can generate Real Power all day.

 

Radish, SSDs don't have mechanical parts to wear out.  Yes, flash memory does have a limited life, but given a very conservative 1000 write cycles capability per flash block, you'd have to write 250 terabytes to a 250 GB SSD before getting close to wearout.  Most people would take decades to write that much.  Do a bunch of peer to peer networking and you might get that down to 10 years. 

 

Show me an HDD that will last that long.

 

As an example, I have 480 GB SSDs that run all the virtual machines I use to test with.  These systems - especially the Win 10 ones - do quite a bit of writing.  So far, per their SMART stats, I've written less than 1 TB of data to them per month.  At this rate projected wearout will be in the year 2055.

 

-Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, that's kind of like the difference between using Nitrous Oxide in an engine and just having an engine that can generate Real Power all day.

Yes and no, the fact that a similar setup has it's own drawbacks doesn't mean that it is anyway unreliable, after all RAM is used much more than storage on any computer and it has proved to be a very solid piece of hardware, in my experience it is very rare that a stick of memory becomes bad, usually defective memory sticks are either DOA or suffer a very early death (though of course it is possible that they wear out over the years of use, I don't think there is an actual "wear" or degrading performances as there can be for SSD's) anyway, to remain OFF topic  :w00t:

power-jeremy-clarkson-top-gear-power-dem

While, almost back on topic, the issues with the proposed setup are not that much, you would need a good UPS, and - just like we did in the good ol'times - in the morning you would switch on the PC, go get a cup of coffee and by the time you are back the OS would be fully loaded, then you could work all day on the very fast/responsive thingy and when leaving you would need to wait a few minutes because during the shutdown changes would need to be committed to permanent storage, with some tricks (thinking of something like a rsync demon running in the background) the amount of data to be committed may be very little and the shutdown could be quite fast.

Just for the record, many, many years ago I used to have workstations that at shutdown robocopied changed data files to a network storage for redundancy/backup and it wasn't that bad.

 

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×