Exactly and those some programs being adobe products and other big ram suckers. I have never had any performance issue's by having a paging file and I would never not have one. The facts that Digerati has stated above are true nobody has documented anything as to the claims of disabling the page file. It's been nothing but guessing. I don't go off of guesses..Digerati said:
From a server administration standpoint, every single system that I work with incorporates a page type file...be it Windows, Linux (swap) or VMWare ESX/i hypervisors (swap). I'm not aware of any design initiative to simply eliminate the use of a swap file.
If by an increase in disk activity, you count "anything" as more..well then of course. But unless you have a very small amount of RAM, it's going to be a dismally small amount of disk I/O.
As to slowing down performance...I've not encountered that. I don't think it's even more true on an SSD.
I would agree that "many people probably don't need a pagefile with large sums of RAM". However, I would not persuade anybody to disable a pagefile as I don't think it leads to any real performance gain, nor does it cause a performance problem. I'd suggest leaving it as designed and being better safe than sorry.
Simple question from : win7x64 with 8go ram. What most efficient approach between letting window determines the PF value and fix it. It seems if you click 'automaticaly manage.." it set it to a value equivalent to RAM, but in the recommend value there is about 12go. Any clue ? Best regards
The best approach is to just let Windows manage it. The is NO evidence whatsoever indicating any other approach is better.
Agreed. The only time I make an exception is when drive space is at a premium. For example, my work laptop has 4GB of RAM and an 80GB SSD. The recommended amount from Windows is 6GB..but that's nearly 10% of my total usable disk space for something I won't likely ever need. So, I set it manually to 2GB of space as a min and a max. It wasn't done in any attempt to improve performance, but rather to just limit disk usage.
Right. But as I mentioned earlier, that is more or less a patch, not a solution. The real solution is to free up disk space, or buy more disk space - though admittedly, on a notebook that is not always an easy task.
And certainly, on XP and before systems, when disk space was limited, there was a problem with "fragmentation creep" - where the expanding and contracting page file would contribute to file fragmentation - so a fixed size PF would remedy that. But again, later versions of Windows memory management has minimized that being a problem.
Digerati...for your information, I have been a SevenForums user since Dec 2009 and I love this site. I am a technical experienced analyst who has dealt with computers and networking since 1997. So I am NOT anonymous NOR am I expressing any false claims. In the past, yes I have enabled pagefile on my old systems because Ram was limited. Now that I have an SSD with a vast amount of Ram, I wanted to experience the pros and cons of having a Pagefile. It's my choice, it works and in my opinion...I wouldn't enable Pagefile on an SSD with a ton of Ram. Simple as that.
No offense and forgive me, but if Microsoft "recommends" not to disable Pagefile....than why give us that option under Advance Settings?? And the words "not needed" is the same as I DON'T NEED which under Advance Settings is DISABLE!
Truthfully, I respect your technical background and I'm sure you're quite the experienced analyst, but I am not the only one out there that feels like Pagefile is not needed on an SSD with vast amount of Ram.
Last edited by Brink; 17 Aug 2011 at 16:13. Reason: removed unneeded comment
I see several posts have been deleted. At least the last one about Marks blog is relevant and informative, is it not?
Just to recap - when faced with a ton of RAM Windows 7 will adapt and use almost no pagefile - sometimes literally not at all. There is no need to force it not to use it by not giving it any - there's no gain! It does not use it anyway!
However, when faced with a memory leak, you have some additional leeway before you run out of memory.
i know some people say that it is best to leave it alone and let windows mange it but i like to use it, i find it helps.
so if the recommended size of your page file is twice your ram what may be the downfall or what can happen if you go above twice your ram size? will it even matter?
also will the page file cause errors if you go above your OS version max amount of ram?
for example i have 3g of ram and the page file set to 10g, im using windows home premium which i think has a max of 8g ram, i may be wrong there tho. i also have the max and min page file set the same, 10g, is this a good idea or not????
Quote