Guest carl feredeck Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even better?
Guest John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? carl feredeck wrote: > someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... > > and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even better? > > If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. John.
Guest Mike Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "John" <John@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:46a0d468$0$15860$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... > carl feredeck wrote: >> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... >> >> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >> better? > > If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. No, you can't. That is *never* a good idea. Mike
Guest John John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? No. John carl feredeck wrote: > someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... > > and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even better? > >
Guest John John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? John wrote: > carl feredeck wrote: > >> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... >> >> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >> better? >> > > If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. That is a bad idea and in most cases counterproductive. John John
Guest John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? Mike wrote: > "John" <John@zen.co.uk> wrote in message > news:46a0d468$0$15860$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... >> carl feredeck wrote: >>> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be >>> better... >>> >>> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>> better? >> >> If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. > > No, you can't. That is *never* a good idea. > > Mike > Mike, I can assure you that I am doing on the machine I am using right now and have been for a long time with no problems. John.
Guest ray Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:59:52 +0300, carl feredeck wrote: > someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... > > and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even better? No - because USB is slow.
Guest John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? John John wrote: > John wrote: > >> carl feredeck wrote: >> >>> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be >>> better... >>> >>> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>> better? >>> >> >> If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. > > That is a bad idea and in most cases counterproductive. > > John John Explain please. John.
Guest carl feredeck Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? Something fishy is going on here "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message news:pan.2007.07.20.15.56.25.373288@zianet.com... > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:59:52 +0300, carl feredeck wrote: > >> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... >> >> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >> better? > > No - because USB is slow. >
Guest Mike Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "John" <John@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:46a0d8e6$0$15860$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... > Mike wrote: > Mike, I can assure you that I am doing on the machine I am using right now > and have been for a long time with no problems. Then you must have a *lot* of RAM and not doing much with the computer. You will always get better performance with paging than without. Windows is desgined that way. Mike
Guest John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? Mike wrote: > "John" <John@zen.co.uk> wrote in message > news:46a0d8e6$0$15860$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... >> Mike wrote: >> Mike, I can assure you that I am doing on the machine I am using right >> now and have been for a long time with no problems. > > Then you must have a *lot* of RAM and not doing much with the computer. > You will always get better performance with paging than without. > Windows is desgined that way. > > Mike > I wouldn't 1.5Gb is a lot of RAM would you. John.
Guest John John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? John wrote: > John John wrote: > >> John wrote: >> >>> carl feredeck wrote: >>> >>>> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be >>>> better... >>>> >>>> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>>> better? >>>> >>> >>> If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. >> >> >> That is a bad idea and in most cases counterproductive. >> >> John John > > > Explain please. The page file will only be used "if" and "when" needed. Without a pagefile you are in fact not allowing the release of RAM by paging, hence "if" and "when" RAM is needed and if all is allocated none will be available because Windows will not be able to release it by paging it out. You are in fact *reducing* the available RAM to the tasks at hand. The only reason that you have not experienced any problems or memory shortages is because you have too much RAM for what you normally do with your computer. Open applications that demand lots of RAM like large cross-linked spreadsheets or do video editing and you will soon get out of memory error messages. Furthermore, with the use of the pagefile along with large amounts of physical RAM, demanding applications can be written to use and be made to believe that they have 4GB of available RAM for their use. Without a pagefile that amount is seriously curtailed to 2GB. The blanket statement that "you can do without a pagefile" cannot be made because requirements are different for all users. Having an unused pagefile hurts nothing and slows nothing down, not having a needed pagefile will cause the computer to crash unless you close open files and shutdown applications to make necessary RAM available to the active processes that need it. In fact, this is one of the duties of the Memory Manager, why should users have to close applications and files when the Memory Manager can simply and easily page them out? And why should users then have to restart applications and reopen files when the Memory Manager can quickly retrieve them from the pagefile? John
Guest Bob I Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? Because it "seemed" like a good idea. You may want to review some of the post release testing before you "buy into the idea" and spend money on a memory stick. carl feredeck wrote: > If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? > > Something fishy is going on here > > > "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message > news:pan.2007.07.20.15.56.25.373288@zianet.com... > >>On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:59:52 +0300, carl feredeck wrote: >> >> >>>someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... >>> >>>and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>>better? >> >>No - because USB is slow. >> > > >
Guest Terry R. Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? On 7/20/2007 10:00 AM On a whim, John John pounded out on the keyboard > John wrote: > >> John John wrote: >> >>> John wrote: >>> >>>> carl feredeck wrote: >>>> >>>>> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be >>>>> better... >>>>> >>>>> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>>>> better? >>>>> >>>> If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all together. >>> >>> That is a bad idea and in most cases counterproductive. >>> >>> John John >> >> Explain please. > > The page file will only be used "if" and "when" needed. Without a > pagefile you are in fact not allowing the release of RAM by paging, > hence "if" and "when" RAM is needed and if all is allocated none will be > available because Windows will not be able to release it by paging it > out. You are in fact *reducing* the available RAM to the tasks at hand. > > The only reason that you have not experienced any problems or memory > shortages is because you have too much RAM for what you normally do with > your computer. Open applications that demand lots of RAM like large > cross-linked spreadsheets or do video editing and you will soon get out > of memory error messages. Furthermore, with the use of the pagefile > along with large amounts of physical RAM, demanding applications can be > written to use and be made to believe that they have 4GB of available > RAM for their use. Without a pagefile that amount is seriously > curtailed to 2GB. The blanket statement that "you can do without a > pagefile" cannot be made because requirements are different for all users. > > Having an unused pagefile hurts nothing and slows nothing down, not > having a needed pagefile will cause the computer to crash unless you > close open files and shutdown applications to make necessary RAM > available to the active processes that need it. In fact, this is one of > the duties of the Memory Manager, why should users have to close > applications and files when the Memory Manager can simply and easily > page them out? And why should users then have to restart applications > and reopen files when the Memory Manager can quickly retrieve them from > the pagefile? > > John > > I've never seen a pagefile being used "if" it was needed. Whether a workstation has 256 meg of RAM or 4 gig, the pagefile is always used by Windows. For light to medium duty users with a lot of RAM, a performance gain can be seen w/o a pagefile, but obviously the reasons you stated come into play. -- Terry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Guest John John Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? Terry R. wrote: > On 7/20/2007 10:00 AM On a whim, John John pounded out on the keyboard > >> John wrote: >> >>> John John wrote: >>> >>>> John wrote: >>>> >>>>> carl feredeck wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be >>>>>> better... >>>>>> >>>>>> and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be >>>>>> even better? >>>>>> >>>>> If you have enough RAM, you can do away with the pagefile all >>>>> together. >>>> >>>> >>>> That is a bad idea and in most cases counterproductive. >>>> >>>> John John >>> >>> >>> Explain please. >> >> >> The page file will only be used "if" and "when" needed. Without a >> pagefile you are in fact not allowing the release of RAM by paging, >> hence "if" and "when" RAM is needed and if all is allocated none will >> be available because Windows will not be able to release it by paging >> it out. You are in fact *reducing* the available RAM to the tasks at >> hand. >> >> The only reason that you have not experienced any problems or memory >> shortages is because you have too much RAM for what you normally do >> with your computer. Open applications that demand lots of RAM like >> large cross-linked spreadsheets or do video editing and you will soon >> get out of memory error messages. Furthermore, with the use of the >> pagefile along with large amounts of physical RAM, demanding >> applications can be written to use and be made to believe that they >> have 4GB of available RAM for their use. Without a pagefile that >> amount is seriously curtailed to 2GB. The blanket statement that "you >> can do without a pagefile" cannot be made because requirements are >> different for all users. >> >> Having an unused pagefile hurts nothing and slows nothing down, not >> having a needed pagefile will cause the computer to crash unless you >> close open files and shutdown applications to make necessary RAM >> available to the active processes that need it. In fact, this is one >> of the duties of the Memory Manager, why should users have to close >> applications and files when the Memory Manager can simply and easily >> page them out? And why should users then have to restart applications >> and reopen files when the Memory Manager can quickly retrieve them >> from the pagefile? >> >> John >> >> > > I've never seen a pagefile being used "if" it was needed. Whether a > workstation has 256 meg of RAM or 4 gig, the pagefile is always used by > Windows. For light to medium duty users with a lot of RAM, a > performance gain can be seen w/o a pagefile, but obviously the reasons > you stated come into play. Yes, the pagefile is always in use, but the usage is minimal when adequate amounts of RAM is installed in the computer. "If" and "when" needed means when additional RAM is needed for new processes, then something has to give, either the working sets are trimmed and paged out or either you shut/close things to free up RAM. John
Guest Ron Martell Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? John <John@zen.co.uk> wrote: >I wouldn't 1.5Gb is a lot of RAM would you. > >John. What you are doing is to force Windows to use physical RAM to fulfill the memory requirements of the unused portions of memory allocation requests. By design Windows must allocate memory space to satisfy all of the memory allocation requests that are issued by Windows components, device drivers, application programs, etc. And also by design pretty well everything asks for memory allocations that are larger than what they usually need. Under normal circumstances (normal = where there is a page file) Windows handles this by allocating RAM only to those portions of the requests that are actually used and by mapping the unused portions to locations in the page file. And these unused portions can amount to a considerable total. For example on my system at present Windows Task Manager reports PF Usage as 597 mb, but the actual valid memory content that has been moved to the page file totals only 79 mb. So there is a total of 518 mb of "phantom" page file usage, most if not all of which would represent the unused portions of memory allocation requests. Hope this explains the situation. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Ron Martell Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote: > >I've never seen a pagefile being used "if" it was needed. Whether a >workstation has 256 meg of RAM or 4 gig, the pagefile is always used by >Windows. For light to medium duty users with a lot of RAM, a >performance gain can be seen w/o a pagefile, but obviously the reasons >you stated come into play. See my reply to John. Most of the "PF Usage" reported by Task Manager represents unused portions of memory allocation requests. To see how much actual valid memory content has been moved to the page file you need a special utility such as http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Ron Martell Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: >someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... > >and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even better? > No. Windows XP does not support the use of a page file on a removable drive because of the potentially disastrous consequences that might occur if the removable drive were removed and then Windows needed to move some of the page file content back into RAM. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Ron Martell Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: >If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? > >Something fishy is going on here > > Vista READYBOOST uses a USB device to create a mirrored copy of the Vista page file. The page file still exists on the hard drive and both copies are maintained. All data written to the page file *must* be written to both places and therefore READYBOOST provides no performance advantage for this aspect. Where READYBOOST does provide a gain is when memory content needs to be loaded back into RAM from the page file. Then the needed item(s) can be loaded from the READYBOOST device with a substantial performance gain over reading them from the hard drive. Because the two locations are identical in content, reading from the READYBOOST device does not jeopardize system integrity in any way. Hope this explains the situation. Good luck Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada -- Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest R. McCarty Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? The transfer rates to "Any" USB peripheral would be significantly lower than any mass storage devices in the PC. On it's best day a USB device is going to be hard pressed to reach/exceed a data transfer rate of 28-30 Megabytes-per-Second. You would likely see rates of an internal drive in excess of 60-90 Megabytes so even if it was feasible to put the Pagefile on a USB device the loss in performance would be very noticeable. "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0g02a314j22rovohg6crob1p2f778ddht6@4ax.com... > "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: > >>someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... >> >>and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even >>better? >> > > No. Windows XP does not support the use of a page file on a removable > drive because of the potentially disastrous consequences that might > occur if the removable drive were removed and then Windows needed to > move some of the page file content back into RAM. > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada > -- > Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) > On-Line Help Computer Service > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca > > "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference > has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest carl feredeck Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? so reading the pagefile from the flashdrive is faster?why did he say usb is slow then? "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ni02a3pu67miakngg4ci74gc3l1g543n9b@4ax.com... > "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: > >>If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? >> >>Something fishy is going on here >> >> > > Vista READYBOOST uses a USB device to create a mirrored copy of the > Vista page file. The page file still exists on the hard drive and > both copies are maintained. All data written to the page file *must* > be written to both places and therefore READYBOOST provides no > performance advantage for this aspect. > > Where READYBOOST does provide a gain is when memory content needs to > be loaded back into RAM from the page file. Then the needed item(s) > can be loaded from the READYBOOST device with a substantial > performance gain over reading them from the hard drive. Because the > two locations are identical in content, reading from the READYBOOST > device does not jeopardize system integrity in any way. > > Hope this explains the situation. > > Good luck > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada > -- > Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) > On-Line Help Computer Service > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca > > "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference > has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? All except... Why is it that the USB drive is faster than the HD in this particular case? -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ni02a3pu67miakngg4ci74gc3l1g543n9b@4ax.com... > "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: > >>If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? >> >>Something fishy is going on here >> >> > > Vista READYBOOST uses a USB device to create a mirrored copy of the > Vista page file. The page file still exists on the hard drive and > both copies are maintained. All data written to the page file *must* > be written to both places and therefore READYBOOST provides no > performance advantage for this aspect. > > Where READYBOOST does provide a gain is when memory content needs to > be loaded back into RAM from the page file. Then the needed item(s) > can be loaded from the READYBOOST device with a substantial > performance gain over reading them from the hard drive. Because the > two locations are identical in content, reading from the READYBOOST > device does not jeopardize system integrity in any way. > > Hope this explains the situation. > > Good luck > > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada > -- > Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) > On-Line Help Computer Service > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca > > "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference > has never been in bed with a mosquito."
Guest Mike Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote in message news:46a0cdcd@newsgate.x-privat.org... > someone asked if moving the pagefile to a second drive would be better... Definitely, as long as it's really a 2nd drive and not a 2nd partition on the same drive. > and now I am asking if putting it on a usb flashdrive would be even > better? I would doubt it. A real drive is faster than any USB 2.0 device, particulary today's 7200 RPM, 8/16 meg cache drives. Mike
Guest R. McCarty Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? A hard drive has a much longer access time, typically in the range of 8-11 mSeconds. A USB drive has a quick access time like a 1.0 mS. So for reads a USB is faster than a hard drive. It's the sustained data rate that is much slower on a USB drive. "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:uiMlpCwyHHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > All except... Why is it that the USB drive is faster than the HD in this > particular case? > > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://www.grystmill.com > > "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ni02a3pu67miakngg4ci74gc3l1g543n9b@4ax.com... >> "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: >> >>>If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? >>> >>>Something fishy is going on here >>> >>> >> >> Vista READYBOOST uses a USB device to create a mirrored copy of the >> Vista page file. The page file still exists on the hard drive and >> both copies are maintained. All data written to the page file *must* >> be written to both places and therefore READYBOOST provides no >> performance advantage for this aspect. >> >> Where READYBOOST does provide a gain is when memory content needs to >> be loaded back into RAM from the page file. Then the needed item(s) >> can be loaded from the READYBOOST device with a substantial >> performance gain over reading them from the hard drive. Because the >> two locations are identical in content, reading from the READYBOOST >> device does not jeopardize system integrity in any way. >> >> Hope this explains the situation. >> >> Good luck >> >> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada >> -- >> Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) >> On-Line Help Computer Service >> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca >> >> "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference >> has never been in bed with a mosquito." > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: moving page file to USB 2.0 flashdrive? Thanks! -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://www.grystmill.com "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:uSuXKFwyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >A hard drive has a much longer access time, typically in the range of > 8-11 mSeconds. A USB drive has a quick access time like a 1.0 mS. > So for reads a USB is faster than a hard drive. It's the sustained data > rate that is much slower on a USB drive. > > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:uiMlpCwyHHA.1132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> All except... Why is it that the USB drive is faster than the HD in this >> particular case? >> >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://www.grystmill.com >> >> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ni02a3pu67miakngg4ci74gc3l1g543n9b@4ax.com... >>> "carl feredeck" <carlferedeck@wizzmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>If USB is slow why then does vista have READYBOOST? >>>> >>>>Something fishy is going on here >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Vista READYBOOST uses a USB device to create a mirrored copy of the >>> Vista page file. The page file still exists on the hard drive and >>> both copies are maintained. All data written to the page file *must* >>> be written to both places and therefore READYBOOST provides no >>> performance advantage for this aspect. >>> >>> Where READYBOOST does provide a gain is when memory content needs to >>> be loaded back into RAM from the page file. Then the needed item(s) >>> can be loaded from the READYBOOST device with a substantial >>> performance gain over reading them from the hard drive. Because the >>> two locations are identical in content, reading from the READYBOOST >>> device does not jeopardize system integrity in any way. >>> >>> Hope this explains the situation. >>> >>> Good luck >>> >>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada >>> -- >>> Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008) >>> On-Line Help Computer Service >>> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca >>> >>> "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference >>> has never been in bed with a mosquito." >> >> > >
Recommended Posts