I like many have read all kinds of thing on page file and ram usage. I also tried many things like we use to do with XP and older system. My conclusion is just let Windows 7 manage all that memory stuff. It does better than I can.
For years we cried for better memory management in Microsoft operating system and when we get it with Windows 7 many still try to work around it.
Can't argue with that.
I think you will find that most experts leave the pagefile on default settings. Many are very familiar with the options available but just don't see the need to change them.
While I do not claim to be an expert I do know quite a bit about the pagefile and how it is configured. I have read enough articles about the pagefile to fill a small book. I use the default configuration. In whatever years I may have left I prefer to use my computer, not play with settings that make little difference.
It was not my intent to imply that the OS method is ridiculous. I let Windows manage that.
The point of the post was to highlight that one should not reference Mark to support a position that he is clearly not in favor of. Mark might even agree that having the OS use a simple ratio as a starting point is fine. He might have made the comment about the programmers reading the magazines as a jest. Either way, I've heard him repeatedly say not to set it to a ratio of RAM if you are going to manage the setting your self.
I'm not a Mark groupie, but he does seem to one of the few people willing to make detailed posts/talks/videos on subjects like this. I don't understand most of it.
A few days ago, I set Process Monitor to show all access to the pagefile... then just let it run. I was really surprised to see how seldom it is accessed. If you opt to try that, set Process Monitor to use a Backing File. I'm running Process Monitor like that right now. I cannot seem to find an action that causes the file to be used.
Hi all, what should my page file be? I have Win 7 64 bit pro and 32gb of ram, its currently set to auto manage page file for all drives, I have 3 internal hard drives and 2 external. I wanna get the most out of my ram as I use a lot of music software that is ram hungry. thanks all.
I must agree with the others since I posted that -- considering the cost of RAM and HDD space is so low -- it is meaningless to restrict the pagefile in any manual way. We are no longer in XP-Days. I know a lot of people clung to XP through Windows 7's stardom (I didn't, but can sympathize with those who did)...
Indeed, for anyone to follow with the same query: Just leave it alone. Microsoft knows what their OS needs at any given time far more than you do. Whatever performance gains you think you'll have are easily trumped by any trouble the OS may have at any given time that an incorrectly managed pagefile may cause.
If you still want to do something, follow Mark's advice as I noted in my previous post on this thread, but truly, it's not something you need to waste time bothering with. Enjoy your machine already!
The best performance increase you'll provide your machine is going to be maxing out the RAM (16GB for Home, 32GB for Pro+ [with appropriate Motherboard]), purchasing an SSD (as low as $100 for quality 250GB...probably less as I'm writing this, but I haven't been in the market in the last month or so), and installing Windows 10 (which provides relatively cool system management functions at the expense of some admin conveniences...Home or Pro doesn't matter unless you're actually planning on using the network features -- like backing up computers over the network or ultimately setting up a server -- or are going to try your hand at Hyper-V or using BitLocker; even with Pro, the Automatic Updates are only delayed if you want...but you can not opt out).
Windows XP days are pretty much over. Embrace the new world of computing, since you don't really have a choice if you're sticking with Windows.
Be well, all.
I'll caution that more RAM consumes more power and creates more heat. Laptop batteries and fans need to handle this. Desktops would probably already handle the cooling - but the run time while on battery backup during a power outage will be a bit shorter with more RAM.
I hadn't considered that...fair point.
Surely, that should be countered a bit by the move to SSD, but that's a fair point. Given the post wasn't about power saving as much as performance improvements via pagefile modification, that fact wasn't as much on my mind. I also don't think that someone still considering their pagefile as an important point of performance is even considering the additional amperage required by more NANDs.
Regardless, again, that is a fair point!
As with all things in Life, there are surely tradeoffs. For me, I would rather have the memory than be concerned with the power consumption. Although I don't really use my laptop on the go too much. I take it with me, but I am normally going somewhere with access to electricity and wi-fi.
You make me want to do some informal testing by purchasing an 8GB kit for my laptop to see what impact my 16GB has. Hmmmmmmmm
Samsung 850 1TB SSD
about 0.4W idle
about 3Watts read/write
Seagate Mobile 1TB HDD
about 0.45W idle
about 1.6W seek
I don't know if seek is comparable to read/write.
Just two that I picked.
Your mileage may vary.
Although a respectable challenge, please tell me that you're not trying to promote the idea that an SSDs short seek-time and even shorter write/read time somehow uses more (or even comparable) energy than a spinning platter and moving, magnetic head...
Here's a short discussion about why the numbers seem this way...Power draw of an SSD vs. 2.5" notebook hard drive confusion??? - Ars Technica OpenForum
Of course, if you've switched to SSD on a laptop, you immediately notice the improvement in battery life.
Here's my search term: power consumption ssd vs hdd
Tons of articles addressing this "issue"
I think common sense should win the day. As I said, there's moving parts and such that take longer to accomplish the same task...
...
Something else of note:
If using the least power is more a concern, does it not seem more feasible to use the better performing part as you'll heavy-draw from the power source less and thus keep the battery in a lower performance state than having to constantly draw from the battery for a longer period of time?
Last edited by GSystems; 22 Mar 2016 at 04:09. Reason: Added "Additional Note" as opposed to creating new post.
Quote