Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    97
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/ind...dpost&p=830259

    I just read this post and checked my pagefile setting for my Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP2 laptop.

    Initial size: 5944 MB
    Maximum size: 5944 MB

    I have 4GB of RAM, and plenty of open space on my hard disk. Is there a possible downside to setting a static pagefile size?

  2. #2
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    No, not really, Windows will use what it needs to and the rest will remain unused.
    The only drawback will be when you go to make an image backup of the drive, your pagefile will be part of the image.
    I find it better to allow Windows to manage the size of the pagefile, so it will only grow as needed.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

  3. #3
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    97
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    But what about the better performance that the static pagefile brings: "I use a static pagefile size on my old XP machine so that Windows won't need to waste time re-sizing the pagefile, saving performance losses."? That's less important than the drawback you mentioned?

  4. #4
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    I actually created a seperate 7 GB partition and place my page file there. There have been pros and cons written about this but I have had no problems. This also elliminates the problem with page file fragmentation. Check it out. There was a pretty good discussion of this in these forums. I can't seem to find the thread at this moment.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  5. #5
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,577
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    It is of little to no use to place the pagefile on a different partition on the same physical drive. That makes Windows treat the everything as another disk drive. This causes a performance hit as it increases the number of queues that Windows must manage. Also, Windows still has to grow and shrink the file. You'd be better off using a fixed size file in the OS partition under these circumstances. With large RAM on many systems, the majority of users seldom if ever use the pagefile. I don't think it is even worth worrying about anymore.

    If you want the pagefile on a different partition it should be on a different physical disk drive. If you have disk drives of different performance characteristics putting the pagefile on the highest performing disk will give the best overall system performance.

    Also, if you want Windows to be able to capture dump information for debugging you need a pagefile on the OS partition. I forget the size right now.

    Joe
    Joe

  6. #6
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,179
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 983 Times in 913 Posts
    The advantage of a separate partition for the swap file is the file remains contiguous and is therefore written and read fast. The alternative is to create a large static page file. Windows will create the file as a contiguous entity - assuming you have enough free contiguous space.

    cheers, Paul

  7. #7
    Gold Lounger Roderunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Scotland.
    Posts
    3,462
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 216 Times in 183 Posts
    I was advised to keep page file on C: If you have 2gb of RAM, custom set both to 3000mb for 4gb set to 6000mb. This relieves your pc from changing as required and also stops page file from fragmenting.
    O wad some Power the giftie gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us!

  8. #8
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,577
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by P T View Post
    The advantage of a separate partition for the swap file is the file remains contiguous and is therefore written and read fast. The alternative is to create a large static page file. Windows will create the file as a contiguous entity - assuming you have enough free contiguous space.
    The better alternative is to observe page file usage over a sufficient time period to determine the maximum usage then configure the pagefile accordingly.

    Joe
    Joe

  9. #9
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    6,121
    Thanks
    160
    Thanked 609 Times in 557 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Moores View Post
    But what about the better performance that the static pagefile brings: "I use a static pagefile size on my old XP machine so that Windows won't need to waste time re-sizing the pagefile, saving performance losses."? That's less important than the drawback you mentioned?
    Performance increase, if any, is negligible at best.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Build your own system; get everything you want and nothing you don't.
    Latest Build:
    ASUS X99 Deluxe, Core i7-5960X, Corsair Hydro H100i, Plextor M6e 256GB M.2 SSD, Corsair DOMINATOR Platinum 32GB DDR4@2666, W8.1 64 bit,
    EVGA GTX980, Seasonic PLATINUM-1000W PSU, MountainMods U2-UFO Case, and 7 other internal drives.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator BATcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    A cultural area in SW England
    Posts
    3,414
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 195 Times in 175 Posts
    Since you have 64-bit Vista, surely the best way of eliminating your pagefile size and placement concerns is to add more real memory, thus minimising the need for paging to take place?
    BATcher

    Time prevents everything happening all at once...

  11. #11
    WS Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    8,179
    Thanks
    47
    Thanked 983 Times in 913 Posts
    The better alternative is to observe page file usage over a sufficient time period to determine the maximum usage then configure the pagefile accordingly.
    Why not just configure the page file at 1.5 time RAM and not bother with the monitoring process? The cost in disk space is very small relative to modern disks and you don't have to worry about increasing the swap file because you have started using a new memory hungry program.

    cheers, Paul

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,577
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,057 Times in 926 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by P T View Post
    Why not just configure the page file at 1.5 time RAM and not bother with the monitoring process? The cost in disk space is very small relative to modern disks and you don't have to worry about increasing the swap file because you have started using a new memory hungry program.
    That is fine also. I don't even know what mine is set to any more. I don't even care to look. Anything having to do with performance is going to be minimally affected by me messing with the pagefile.

    Joe
    Joe

  13. #13
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    This post from Microsoft is somewhat dated and refers to XP, but still seems appropriate to Win 7, at least for me.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •