Jump to content

Pagefile size question

sangwooksohn

By sangwooksohn
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Zxian

Zxian

Posted
Posted
Just consider this simple logic: suppose you let Windows manage the size of the pagefile. If and when Windows needs to expand the size of the pagefile a slow process will start and performance will take a big hit. Is that what you want to be happening? I don't.

Well consider the alternative - you don't set your pagefile large enough. Now the program tries to request memory, and Windows won't give it. The program stops or crashes - is that better than it slowing down temporarily?

And if you're running a server that pages a lot when opening/running a particular program - you need more RAM.

And since I got so much ram I guess it's not dangerous to try the 2 registry tweaks posted above...
Those tweaks don't do anything in XP. XP is pretty much tweaked as it is. IIRC, that "tweak" became obsolete in NT5 - but don't quote me on that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Takeshi

Takeshi

Posted
Posted

Every so often someone resurrects one of the old PF threads here. It seems the flame will never extinguish.

What I can't figure out is, why does it have to be a single setting that applies to everyone in the Universe? Why do we have to be so dogmatic about it to the point of vigorously defending our belief?

It's all very well what the Memeroy Manager is supposed to do but does theory always apply in practice?

Is the PF need for someone who only uses the computer for emails and internet the same as another who uses Photoshop and Premiere?

If only system managed size will do and anything other than that will crash the computer, then why does Windows let you customise the PF in the GUI or via regedit? Does that suggest that most of the time it will be alright if you customise the PF one way or another, because the need for PF size is only moderate anyway for most users? Is there any hard objective scientific evidence that one setting is the best?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LLXX

LLXX

Posted
Posted

If the pagefile is not set to a fixed size, there is a large chance that it'll become fragmented when it resizes.

That decreases performance considerably.

I use 1024/1024 on all my machines, XP, 98Se, and Server 2000, haven't had any problems so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andromeda43

Andromeda43

Posted
Posted
If the pagefile is not set to a fixed size, there is a large chance that it'll become fragmented when it resizes.

That decreases performance considerably.

I use 1024/1024 on all my machines, XP, 98Se, and Server 2000, haven't had any problems so far.

Will Windows actually create a Pagefile that's NOT contiguous?

On the chance that it might, a person can fix that by turning off the pagefile, defragging the HD and rebooting the PC after turning the pagefile back on again.

My tack on this process is a bit different.

My HD has always been in FAT-32 mode. I run my backup program, Ghost 2003, from a boot disk.

From batch files on that boot disk, I can delete the Pagefile, Old restore points and all other junk files on the HD. Deleting the Pagefile and other junk files, saves me about 2 gigs of space in my backup Image file.

Once the backup is completed, to my second HD, I do an immediate Restore.

All files are rewritten to the HD in perfect order with NO spaces and NO fragmentation.

When I'm finished with the backup and restore, I reboot the PC normally. Windows writes a new Pagefile at the end of the data area. I do this a couple of times a week. Windows manages my pagefile very nicely and is currently @ 1.5x the size of my ram. 1 gig of ram = pagefile of 1.5gig.

Running Ghost 2003 (Ghost.exe) from a boot disk, like I do, I get three benefits. (all in less than 10 minutes, with my 3000mhz processor and SATA hard drive)

1. A full backup of C:

2. A really great Defrag, (complete re-write of C:) from the Restore process.

3. A fresh new Pagefile, when Windows starts.

It jus don't get no better'n that! :thumbup

Andromeda43

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thauzar

Thauzar

Posted
Posted
And since I got so much ram I guess it's not dangerous to try the 2 registry tweaks posted above...
Those tweaks don't do anything in XP. XP is pretty much tweaked as it is. IIRC, that "tweak" became obsolete in NT5 - but don't quote me on that.

I don't know if both my 0x000000F4 and 0x00000077 bsods where related, but strangely, I stopped getting the F4 one after lowering my page file which by default was set (by nlite or windows I don't know) to 2046-3xxx (don't remember the exact value), down to 1000-1500mb. Then I applied the 2 memory tweaks provided on page 2.

I've been running since yesterday and making a normal usage of my computer and still got no bsod... maybe *crosses fingers, touches wood, prays to every god...* this tweak fixed my problems!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zxian

Zxian

Posted
Posted

@Thauzar - Did you research what those stop codes mean before just applying "tweaks" to solve the problems?

0x00000077: KERNEL_STACK_INPAGE_ERROR

A page of kernel data requested from the pagefile could not be found or read into memory. This message also can indicate disk hardware failure, disk data corruption, or possible virus infection.

0x000000F4: CRITICAL_OBJECT_TERMINATION

One of the many processes or threads crucial to system operation has unexpectedly exited or been terminated. As a result, the system can no longer function. Specific causes are many, and often best resolved by a careful history of the problem and the circumstances of the error message. One user, who experienced this on return from Standby mode on Win XP SP2, found the cause was that Windows was installed on a slave drive; compare KB 330100.

Now... 0x77 seems like it might have something to do with the pagefile, but 0xF4? It's not the first thing that I would think of. Also - you've changed two things about your system, and said that it's the second that fixed the problem. What happens if you keep the pagefile at its reduced size and undo the tweaks. Do you still get blue screens? Basic troubleshooting tip - change one thing at a time, and don't change anything else until you know what's changed in the behaviour of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aegis

Aegis

Posted
Posted
And since I got so much ram I guess it's not dangerous to try the 2 registry tweaks posted above...
Those tweaks don't do anything in XP. XP is pretty much tweaked as it is. IIRC, that "tweak" became obsolete in NT5 - but don't quote me on that.

I disagree with that. The tweaks Thauzar mentioned does help performance a bit when used in the right situation. There's also a whole lot of tweaks that no one knows about, such as this one I've discovered (it literally doubles your resolution).

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\GraphicsDrivers]

"DoubleDpi"=dword:00000001

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Takeshi

Takeshi

Posted
Posted

I forgot to say that Windows XP can increase the PF even when you've set it to a fixed maximum. It happened to me more than once before. It doesn't have to crash. So it depends on the program (it was VMWare running at the time).

So it's not the end of the world when you set the PF too small. It will cause a slight delay when Windows enlarge the PF but that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thauzar

Thauzar

Posted
Posted

@Zxian i'm not saying the 2nd thing did it, only that the combination of those two did it, and in my case it's fine like that I don't care to know the rest. But I had checked the codes on the net and in the F4 solution there was a mention of pagefile somewhere, else I wouldn't have gone on that lead. Also bad memory could have been in cause (no one mentioned it), but I had checked that one out thouroughly with memtest. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RJARRRPCGP

RJARRRPCGP

Posted
Posted (edited)
I agree with Martin.

At best you can move your pagefile to another drive (not another partition on the same drive as Windows is installed), like martin said already.

Martin also says that it would be wiser to let Windows manage your pagefile. Sure you could set it to 256MB, but it would be wiser if you just left it as it is.

I know what it feels like to see a huge file on your HDD for which you see no apparent use. Mine is (only) 1.5 Gig (1 Gig RAM), but believe me, you'll get used to it.

On the other hand, if MSPaint and MSN Messenger are all you use, go ahead and change it to 256MB. But... I cannot judge what YOU will be doing with your computer in the future. My advise is ALWAYS leave your page file managed by Windows.

Again, thanks Martin for your valuable input.

I disagree. Unless you're required to make crash dumps, the more RAM, the less pagefile usage is required.

If you get a memory error then, it's probaly from the application itself, not Windows! In that case, you have an application that requires virtual memory.

I'm already wary that Project64 (www.pj64.net) likely requires virtual memory.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeneralMandible

GeneralMandible

Posted
Posted (edited)
On the chance that it might, a person can fix that by turning off the pagefile, defragging the HD and rebooting the PC after turning the pagefile back on again.

PageDefrag by SysInternals for the win. :P

Mark says that memory optimizers are a hoax and Windows does just fine at managing the memory. Doesn't PageDefrag optimize the virtual memory? This would mean that Windows does have (minor) issues with memory management and you need something to optimize it. That is somewhat contradictory from what I've read. Just an observation.

Edited by GeneralMandible
Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...