Layback Bear said:
japastor; in reading your post several time. A lot of information there. I think what your are suggesting is let Windows 7 handle the memory and if needed just add more ram. Is that correct?
Um, no, sort of the opposite. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Most of the stuff I've read about not putting page files on SSD dates from the time when they were much more expensive and, people had the idea -- at the time not unreasonable --that they had to do everything to minimize the amount of space used by "unnecessary" things like page files.
SSD prices have come down significantly, so should be able to get a big enough one to hold ample page file(s) and any apps that are very slow to start up at a reasonable price. I just bought a Crucial 128 GB m4 2.5-Inch Solid State Drive SATA 6Gb/s CT128M4SSD2 from Amazon for $165.78 with free shipping. I've gotten 2TB HDDs for less, and RAM is cheap -- but
- performance for a HDD isn't in the same league as a SSD
- most people have an upper limit on RAM, be it 4, 8, 12, 16, 32GB, or more -- but typically 4-12
So at some point, you max out RAM -- but can always add swap (page file).
Truth in advertising disclosure: my system will support 32GB of RAM, so technically I could have upgraded from the 2x4 I have to 4x8 -- but that would actually have cost more
, even with off-brand memory. And with the SSD, I have enough room for all of my hardcore graphics apps and enough swap to support 32GB of RAM when I decide it's necessary.
I don't let Windows manage my swap, because it never allocates as much as I want: I typically set the minimum at the amount of actual RAM I have, and the max at 3-4x that -- so for my current 8GB I believe I have max of 32GB of swap allocated.
Recall from my first post that I had 4GB of physical RAM and 16 of swap on my Win32 XP box, and was constantly getting "Virtual Memory is low" messages -- so it was
using swap, and lots of it.
Again, if you're a light user, this is all irrelevant -- but if you push the limits of what your machine can handle, it makes a big difference.
Finally, I haven't tried this yet, but I believe that major memory hogs like Photoshop will let you allocate temp space for them in a location of your choosing; SSD may or may not be perfect for this (I don't know whether it uses memory in a SSD-friendly way), but it's got to work pretty well, and if my SSD wears out in a couple of years, I'll be happy to replace it -- by then, I can probably get 512GB for what I paid for 128 last month.
Again, if you edit image files that max out at 6-12MB, this is irrelevant. I often edit 48-bit, 3200 dpi scans, and some of them have hit over 800MB. No, I'm not making that up: the average
size of the files in my Scans folder at this moment is 106.5MB, and the largest is just under 885MB. I can use all the help I can get when editing these puppies.
So -- in summary:
- page/swap files are -- according to MS, with what appears to be solid evidence -- the first things you should think of putting on your SSD
- more memory is great, but there are good reasons to specify a lot of swap (including limits on how much RAM you can cram into your system)
- I don't let Windows manage my VMEM (Virtual Memory)/swap/page files, because it's too conservative for me
YMMV, but that's how I do it.