Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

[Guest Tom]

Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

 

Tom

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

There is a general "Rule" that the Pagefile should be 1.5 times physical

RAM. However, the base size needs to equal Physical RAM to do a

Full Memory dump. Actual usage varies according to what you use &

how much RAM it requires. With current PCs having 1.0 Gigabytes or

more you'll find that the Pagefile traffic is just around ~50-75 Meg with

normal use.

 

You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks but

it's easiest to just let Windows manage it. Some "Performance" sites

recommend turning it off but that works against the design of a Virtual

memory system.

 

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message

news:wiXtj.328$kI4.162@trnddc05...

> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

> installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

>

> Tom

>

[Guest Colin Barnhorst]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Yes, let XP manage the swap file.

 

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote in message

news:wiXtj.328$kI4.162@trnddc05...

> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

> installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

>

> Tom

>

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

> You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks but

>it's easiest to just let Windows manage it.

 

I set it on a different drive (not partition), larger than recommended

and with the min and max the same.

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

That setup is something that has merit, as long as the drive

has equal or better specs than the one that XP is installed on.

Setting the Min/Max prevents the pagefile from expanding if

more is needed - but that doesn't happen very often. Still for

the average user the internal management is adequate.

 

"Uncle Grumpy" <unclegrumpy@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:v5lgr3dfeehintgh4f0v62n92baavc717s@4ax.com...

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>

>> You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks but

>>it's easiest to just let Windows manage it.

>

> I set it on a different drive (not partition), larger than recommended

> and with the min and max the same.

[Guest VanguardLH]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"R. McCarty" wrote in message

news:ewXaijXcIHA.5208@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> There is a general "Rule" that the Pagefile should be 1.5 times

> physical

> RAM. However, the base size needs to equal Physical RAM to do a

> Full Memory dump.

 

Actually the base pagefile size should be equal to the physical RAM

size plus 64KB. This limitation is superfluous if you configure

Windows to NOT save a dump, even a small one, when it crashes. This

is not related to the 64KB size for the smallest size selectable for a

crash dump logfile. I can't remember why I include this extra 64KB

but it's something that has stuck with me for years of doing QA

testing on multiple Windows platforms.

> Actual usage varies according to what you use &

> how much RAM it requires. With current PCs having 1.0 Gigabytes or

> more you'll find that the Pagefile traffic is just around ~50-75 Meg

> with

> normal use.

 

I use the general rule of setting pagefile space:

 

- For 256MB, or less, set the minimum pagefile size to 384MB.

 

- For more than 256MB but less than 1GB, set the minimum pagefile size

to 1.5 times the size of physical RAM.

 

- Above 1GB, set maximum pagefile size to 1 times the size of physical

RAM.

 

- These defaults may be overridden if you use an application that

wants LOTS of pagefile space. Most end-users don't run

enterprise-level applications on their workstations so this rarely is

a need.

 

- If there are multiple hard disks, split the pagefile across those

hard disks (at 1 times the size of the physical RAM for the pagefile

on each hard disk). The partition must obviously not be hidden for

Windows to use that pagefile. Use only one pagefile in one unhidden

partition per hard disk. This helps performance because Windows will

first attempt to use pagefiles in partition on hard disks other than

the partition in which Windows is installed to permit overlapped I/O

to those hard disks. It is possible to allocate a tiny pagefile in

the Windows partition and just use the pagefiles in the other

partitions for virtual memory but I recommend the 1x size in case you

later lose the other hard disk(s). Do not place multiple pagefiles in

different partitions on the same hard disk.

 

- If you enable dump file logging on a Windows crash, add 64KB to the

minimum size. Unless you are a developer debugging your own

application that crashes, the crash dump is rarely requested by

technical support (they usually don't know what to do with it). Users

don't know what to do with the dump logs. On my work host, crash

logging is enabled (complete memory dump). At home, it is disabled

(none).

 

Often I use a simpler algorithm: 1.5x for under 1GB of RAM, 1x for 1GB

and up, set minimum = maximum for the pagefile size, and disable crash

dump logging.

> You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks

> but

> it's easiest to just let Windows manage it.

 

Actually you will want to set the minimum and maximum pagefile size to

the same value to reduce fragmentation of its file space on your hard

disk. Set min and max to the same value and reboot to use the new

values. However, to remove any defragmentation already present in the

pagefile.sys file, you will need to use a defragmenter that will touch

that file, like SysInternals' PageDefrag (free). There is another

trick of deleting the pagefile.sys file by rebooting into Recovery

Console mode, unhiding that file, renaming it to something else, and

then deleting it, and reboot back into Windows.

 

If you let Windows manage the pagefile size between two different

values for minimum and maximum size, the pagefile is more likely to

get defragmented. With minimum = maximum, there will probably be 2 or

3 fragments for the pagefile but it won't get worse over time.

> Some "Performance" sites

> recommend turning it off but that works against the design of a

> Virtual

> memory system.

 

Even if you had a terabyte of physical RAM, some pagefile space is

always used by the OS and your applications. Applications may not

function if there is no pagefile space (i.e., you have gobs of

physical memory and set max size of the pagefile to zero). Even

Windows might not run since it expects to put part of its Exec into

the pagefile (which can be reduced with a registry tweak but not

completely eliminated). Some applications know that their data

sections or some code should be pushed into the pagefile because the

performance of the application is not impacted by using the pagefile

and they don't want to consume more physical RAM than they really

need.

 

An application may easily ask for hundreds of megabytes of storage

(which goes through the Virtual Memory since Virtual Memory is always

in operation even if the pagefile min and max are set to zero). Most

users never see this. Include the VM Size column in the Processes tab

of Task Manager. For example, I've seen some user proclaim that a

particular anti-virus product has less memory consumption than some

other anti-virus program that they want to pan but they never bother

to check the TOTAL memory consumption by checking how much pagefile

space is consumed by their favorite anti-virus program. You might see

in Task Manager that your favorite program only consumes 10 to 20 KB

of physical memory (under the Memory Usage column) but neglect to see

that it eats up another 150MB in the pagefile. They don't realize

their favorite program is a pig on memory consumption because most of

the data and some of its code remains dormant until the active stub

needs it. I've seen security suites that include privacy protection

mechanisms, like site blocking, where the configured table of blocked

URLs and sites is data that gets loaded into the pagefile and eats up

100 to 150 MB just for that table.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223

http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm

http://smallvoid.com/article/windows-page-file.html

[Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote:

>Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

>80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

>installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

 

With 2.5GB of ram and following the baseline you would have a huge

pagefile.sys.

 

Ram is faster than Disk Access, you have enough ram you can start

cutting down on the swap file; you could even go without a swap file

with 2.5 Gigs memory.

 

I have 2.5 gigs of memory and a 300Meg swap file (pagefile.sys), I'm

just not ready to run without a swap file.

--

 

It was an accident

http://www.tutztutz.com/2008/02/freakiest-accidents-ever-captured/

[Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

>when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

>>installed?

 

I missread this, who'd of thought....

 

2GB cut down on the swap file, 512MB run about a 750MB swapfile.

--

 

It was an accident

http://www.tutztutz.com/2008/02/freakiest-accidents-ever-captured/

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote:

> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

> installed?

 

 

This is *not* the same for everyone with the same amount of RAM. The

most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed

are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more

you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)

you need to accommodate it.

 

Beware of advice to make it some factor of the amount of RAM you have;

that's only significant with respect to dumps, and most people have no

need of dumps.

 

Contrary to the usual advice, the more RAM you have, the *less* page

file you need (since the page file substitutes for RAM when you don't

have enough).

 

> Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

 

 

Despite everything I said above, making the page file smaller than the

Windows default accomplishes nothing but saving a small amount of disk

space. Although that used to be a valuable thing to do, in these days

of very inexpensive large disk drives, the value of doing that is

insignificant, and most people should just accept the Windows default.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Shenan Stanley]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Tom wrote:

> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,

> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other

> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

 

The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is

"System Managed"...

 

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

[Guest philo]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

 

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:u26J%23RZcIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Tom wrote:

> > Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,

> > 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other

> > has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

>

> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is

> "System Managed"...

>

> --

> Shenan Stanley

> MS-MVP

>

 

 

<snip>

 

I agree...just let Windows manage it and forget it

[Guest Meat Plow]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:33:16 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote:

>

>> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

>> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

>> installed?

>

>

> This is *not* the same for everyone with the same amount of RAM. The

> most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed

> are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more

> you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)

> you need to accommodate it.

>

> Beware of advice to make it some factor of the amount of RAM you have;

> that's only significant with respect to dumps, and most people have no

> need of dumps.

>

> Contrary to the usual advice, the more RAM you have, the *less* page

> file you need (since the page file substitutes for RAM when you don't

> have enough).

>

>

>> Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

>

>

> Despite everything I said above, making the page file smaller than the

> Windows default accomplishes nothing but saving a small amount of disk

> space. Although that used to be a valuable thing to do, in these days

> of very inexpensive large disk drives, the value of doing that is

> insignificant, and most people should just accept the Windows default.

 

Some processes use the page file regardless. I agree with letting XP

decide it's size. In linux my swap file doesn't exist because it's not

needed with 4 gigs of ram (even with 1 or 2). Big diffference over XP's

page file.

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:54:13 -0800, Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

> "Tom" <yahoo@earthlink.com> wrote:

>

> >Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-

> >80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM

> >installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

>

> With 2.5GB of ram and following the baseline you would have a huge

> pagefile.sys.

>

> Ram is faster than Disk Access, you have enough ram you can start

> cutting down on the swap file; you could even go without a swap file

> with 2.5 Gigs memory.

>

> I have 2.5 gigs of memory and a 300Meg swap file (pagefile.sys), I'm

> just not ready to run without a swap file.

 

 

You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

never actually gets used.

 

But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

available for any other use.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest jorgen]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

> never actually gets used.

>

> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

> available for any other use.

 

Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

 

Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The

DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).

Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original

Windows NT OS.

 

Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in

C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys

 

"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message

news:%23Hh6fVacIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>

>> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

>> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

>> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

>> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

>> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

>> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

>> never actually gets used.

>>

>> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

>> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

>> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

>> available for any other use.

>

> Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?

[Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:

>Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>

>> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

>> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

>> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

>> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

>> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

>> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

>> never actually gets used.

>> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

>> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

>> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

>> available for any other use.

>Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?

 

I just deleted my Pagefile.sys (no page file setting), and ran PerfMon

It's a lot different than last time I used it; Lots of .net settings.

But set: .NET CLR memory

 

"This counter displays the amount of virtual memory (in bytes)

currently committed by the Garbage Collector. (Committed memory is the

physical memory for which space has been reserved on the disk paging

file)."

 

Shows 0, nada

 

And I still get my kills in COD4 :}

 

--

 

Lineage ][

http://flashgame.plaync.jp/dwarfcomplete.jsp

[Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

>

>Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The

>DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).

>Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original

>Windows NT OS.

 

The AmigA never used a swap file, did with 10megs what it takes

windows 256megs and a swap file to do. And you just pushed the button

to turn them off, no asking the system if it was ready of not.

> Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in

>C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys

 

I don't find that file (TempPF.Sys) anywhere on the OS partition or

C:\ drive

>"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message

>news:%23Hh6fVacIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>>

>>> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

>>> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

>>> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

>>> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

>>> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

>>> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

>>> never actually gets used.

>>>

>>> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

>>> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

>>> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

>>> available for any other use.

>>

>> Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?

>

 

--

 

Lineage ][

http://flashgame.plaync.jp/dwarfcomplete.jsp

[Guest jorgen]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

R. McCarty wrote:

> Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in

> C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys

 

I think that only goes for Windows 2000 and earlier

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257758

[Guest jorgen]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

R. McCarty wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

>

> Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The

> DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).

> Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original

> Windows NT OS.

 

Virtual memory "space" is not equal the paging file. A page can be

backed up by real ram, a paging file or something else

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

 

wikipedia is a shaky source for authoritative techy (or any other)

info.

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote:

>The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is

>"System Managed"...

 

Then why is the alternative method offered?

[Guest Uncle Grumpy]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>I agree...just let Windows manage it and forget it

 

Just set it to a humongous min/max size and forget it.

 

Six on one, half a dozen on the other.

 

Just this past week I just made a NOTICABLE improvement on a friend's

sluggish notebook (she only has 212m of RAM after video use) by

setting a 1gig page file, rather than let Windows manage it for her.

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:38:55 +0100, jorgen <na@invalid> wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>

> > You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory

> > you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you

> > have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in

> > anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that

> > pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases

> > if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and

> > never actually gets used.

> >

> > But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in

> > real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that

> > pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not

> > available for any other use.

>

> Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?

 

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654, which includes the sentence

"When no page file exists, or the page file is insufficient, the

system reserves some virtual memory in the physical memory for its

paging needs."

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest R. McCarty]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Not everybody has technical understanding of computers. The

link was just so anyone interested could get a little background

info. 2nd only to "Registry Cleaners", Pagefile questions usually

startup a long running thread. With the kinds of RAM that PCs

have installed these days it's no longer a major concern.

 

Here's a better explanation ( MS KB article ):

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech

 

"Uncle Grumpy" <unclegrumpy@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:d0chr3dmt1h83h5q2nom7it1ruocp9m7ob@4ax.com...

> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:

>

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory

>

> wikipedia is a shaky source for authoritative techy (or any other)

> info.

[Guest Shenan Stanley]

Re: Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?

 

Tom wrote:

> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,

> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other

> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?

 

Shenan Stanley wrote:

> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my

> opinion - is "System Managed"...

 

Uncle Grumpy wrote:

> Then why is the alternative method offered?

 

How is your question relevant to my given answer?

 

When I stated "in my opinion", that means that is what _I think_ the OP

should do, what _I think_ is the best setting/option. I did not say, "There

should be no other choice." I stated what I believed to be the best answer

for the majority of the people, the OP included given the information we

have at hand.

 

To answer your question - I think it is there because it was always there

and so that tweakers have something to do and perhaps - just perhaps - in

certain settings/situations one might need to change it.

 

--

Shenan Stanley

MS-MVP

--

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html