I have a Kingston KC100 STA-III SSD + GEIL 16GB DDR3 PC1333 RAM.... I have set my page file to a fixed 1024 MB min/max size But I am scared that all of this RAM might go wasted if there is a pagefile.. What if Windows is stupid to actually put the kernel files in the pagefile rather than in the faster RAM? Please guide me
Windows will never page the kernel unless you have absolutely no RAM left. You'll probably never ever hit page with 16GB. Maybe a few MB from some program that is using it on purpose. I say leave it.
Thanks Mr. Hungry Man. I value your opinion always as you seem to know what you're talking about Ill leave it as it is...1024 min / max
Thanks for the confirmation dude any reason why we should leave a small page file? I didn't face a problem in the past with the page file off for 2 years but just wanna be safe... any reason you wanna tell me?
Well I did run it without a pagefile when I had 8GB in another laptop had a few years ago and it didn't seem to make a difference so I just made a small pagefile for safe measures I suppose.
There are only two reasons I can think of to leave a pagefile when you have 16GB of RAM and you're not at risk of OOM errors: 1) If you get a kernel panic/BSOD you need the pagefile or you can't see the log. Not a big deal. 2) Some programs are built assuming you have one. Older programs, some old games, photoshop.
You need a page file of a certain size to create memory and kernel dumps. Info here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/254649
Very true! I have four computers with SSDs on all of them. 1. Laptop A has 16GB RAM. 2. Laptop B has 8GB RAM. 3. Desktop C has 8GB RAM. 4. Desktop D has 6GB RAM. On all the above the PageFile is set 2048/2048 min/max. Best regards, KOR! P.S. On both Laptops, I have turned off the Hibernate!.
Its not stupid to page parts of the kernel out IF needed (such as when active process needs ram over idle parts of kernel). Drivers and parts of the kernel (most of it actually) and kernel data that should not be able to be paged out to disk are marked as so. Right onto the meat of the topic : http://blogs.technet.com/b/markrussinovich/archive/2008/11/17/3155406.aspx Do you have any realworld figures to show that there is actually any peformance to be gained from disabling pagefile ? - You need to perform some before/after benchmarks to prove disabling the pagefile actually improves peformance under your typical workloads. Cheers, Nick
There was a benchmark done by tomshardware. 8GB, 12GB, 16GB with pagefiles on/off for video rendering. 8GB crashed without page file. 12GB and 16GB were significantly faster without it. Still, I think leaving the page file is fine. It won't get hit unless there's a massive amount of RAM being used.
Here's an interesting read: http://www.tweakhound.com/2011/10/10/the-windows-7-pagefile-and-running-without-one/ The test PC ended up with essentially no performance difference either way.
Please read the articles by Russinocivh Nick Rhodes linked to : You can get away with disabling the page-file.. Until you do something that requires it or you use a program that expects paging to be enabled . How much does a BSOD improve performance ? This is one of the worst 'performance-tweaks' ever . http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it
You can't disable paging itself in Windows, just the pagefile ). Apps that crash is a result of expecting a larger allocation of memory pages (which are mapped to physical ram and pagefile if available) than available. Adding physical ram will solve the crash the same way adding the same amount of pagefile space. Cheers, Nick
Depends if you're concerned about privacy, or not ! No PageFile = NO PG sniffing by Anyone, EVER = I've had mine disabled since 98SE days, & for ever on XP. I only have 2Gb of RAM & Never had Any issues
I've disabled pagefile for at least 5 years. As long as you have enough RAM you are unlikely to run into any problems.