WinXP swap file

Hi...

I'd like to ask two questions: In order to improve performance, is it a good thing to fix the size of WinXP swap file instead of letting the system "dynamically adjust" it along the way?

If so, what's the ideal size to give it? I heard it should be 2 times the amount of RAM your system disposes of.

For instance, if one is running on a 512M RAM machine, the swap file size should be set [Min.1024-Max.1024]

What do you guys think on this topic? Do you agree with the above cited example?

Thanks

 

Theoretically speaking, it is better to fix the paging file at one size because that way Windows doesn't have to 'build it on the fly', but in practice I haven't noticed too much difference when the paging file is located on the system drive.

'2x the amount of RAM' is a general rule of thumb which should work out pretty well if you have 512MB of physical RAM. But some programs use more virtual memory than others, so why not give the paging file 3x the amount of RAM, after all that amount of disk space is usually no big deal.

Another matter is where to best place the paging file. That's really a non-issue if you only have one physical hard drive, but if you have a 2nd hard drive on your system it could be very beneficial (performance-wise) to place the paging file on the 2nd drive (if that 2nd drive is on its own IDE channel and offers comparable performance to your system drive)!

~pv

 

Hi, thanks for answering.

Did you notice spectacular differences when placing it on a second independent HDD?

Also, I just read on the net some people would advice to specify a (big) minimal size while leaving the maximum unspecified, i.e. dynamic, in case some programs would need much more than others from time to time...!?

 

THe rules of thumb about thesize of a page file are obsolete.
Folkes do not need a large page file.

Run the program at http://www.standards.com/index.html?pagefileusagemonitor to learn what is really needed by your system.

It is better to have the page file on a PHYSICAL drive other than the one in which the OS lives.

In my case, I have a multiboot system with the main oS on J, so I put a 64MB page file on C and a 128-10889MB page file on G.

Rarely does use exceeed 30-40MB in each, and even more rarely, does the pagefile increase in size.

Of course, this depends on you system, so run the program to find out what you need.

 

I don't know about spectacular, but (depending on the applications you are running) the difference is definitely noticeable.

As far as sizing the paging file, my feelings are that the space you allocate (even for an oversized paging file) is 'peanuts' compared to a modern drive's total storage, so why not be generous? My paging file has its own 4GB partition on my 3rd HDD (a fast 80GB drive) which has its own IDE channel. I also use the drive for downloads, general work-space and on-line backups (I also do off-line backups), but as that drive is not in use otherwise, the paging file has 'the full attention of the disk-heads'.

 

If your not a gamer like me you could try running your machine with paging turned off which I have done with no probs.

If you receive out of memory errors then try the other posters advice.Only takes a sec to adjust.

The taskmanager always shows some paging even with it turned off but this paging is done at the kernel and dll level.

 

Even Dr. Who likely could not do this in a second.

Just put a, say, 64MB page file on C.
And, if there's another PHYSICAL drive, try putting a variable sive page file there.
And run the PagefileUsageMonitor.

You'll be surprised at how little is used by a typical system.

 

OK,20 secs.LOL

"Only takes a sec" over here means "not much time".