Solved best page file size for 4gb ram memory

[GSystems]

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.

Now, while we're at it (since you've now grabbed my attention fully lol), here's a discussion on the give-and-takes of RAM power consumption. Of course more NANDs will consume more power, but with less RAM, you're clearly going to have less cache...thus, more disk usage...and more power usage...

https://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing-larger-ram-means-consuming-more-energy

(Such an unexpected, yet intriguing reproach. I appreciate it...ensures that I'm not holding on to false beliefs as well)
https://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing-larger-ram-means-consuming-more-energy

 

[DavidE]

I configure my systems to use a Custom size with 200 MB Initial size and a 4000 MB Maximum size for the pagefile.
That way i can easily see if the pagefile size ever increases.
If it does, i try to find the program(s) using the pagefile when i have plenty of "Available" RAM.
For me, these settings still let Windows manage the pagefile size as needed.

Interestingly I'm seeing the pagefile increase in size for Win 10 over time.
I use Hybrid Sleep, and I've found the pagefile increases in size after a "Sleep/Wakeup".
Win 7 and Win 8.1 don't do this.
A Win 10 restart sets the Initial size back to my Custom setting.

This is more of a curiosity thing for me, so i can try and tweak something if it uses the pagefile rather than available RAM.
My understanding is using RAM is faster then using a pagefile even if it is on a SSD.

 

[UsernameIssues]

~~~
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

I saw that thread as I was searching for drive specs.
I understand what you are saying, re:short time needed to between idle states.

~~~
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...

The key word there being "task". If the task is to sit idle while the user posts to forums, then there is not much power savings. My usage patterns include loading/unloading virtual machines a few times each hour. I would expect some savings with an SSD. However - keep reading

...

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?

Does an SSD perform better at idle than a HDD? What if the HHD is idle 80% of the time?

I glanced at Resource Monitor and watched the response times of the reads/writes while the SSD was "idle". The OS was just doing light stuff. Only 20 entries under disk activity. Response times were 6ms on the vast majority of operations. On a desktop with a spinner, the respose times were mostly 0ms with only 2 entries at 1ms. Is this because the info is in the spinner's cache? Is the spinner considered idle for those operations?


I don't own a computer - so this discussion does not impact me much. I don't have much say so in the hardware that my employer gives me.

 

[UsernameIssues]

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.

Now, while we're at it (since you've now grabbed my attention fully lol), here's a discussion on the give-and-takes of RAM power consumption. Of course more NANDs will consume more power, but with less RAM, you're clearly going to have less cache...thus, more disk usage...and more power usage...

https://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing-larger-ram-means-consuming-more-energy

(Such an unexpected, yet intriguing reproach. I appreciate it...ensures that I'm not holding on to false beliefs as well)

If the user is not hitting the page file at 8GB, then what is gained by taking that to 16GB?

I have 8GB in this laptop and 16GB in my desktop. Neither hit the page file much - most of the time. Not even when starting a VM. However, if I load 6 VMs, then I'll need the page file. Or if I'm testing things with lots of browser tabs, then I'll need the page file.

It really depends on what a user is going to be doing most of the time. Just adding RAM might do more harm than good. Adding an SSD will vastly improve initial load times and boot/reboot times - but again, you don't reboot 80% of the time.

 

[GSystems]

Now, We're Talking

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.

Now, while we're at it (since you've now grabbed my attention fully lol), here's a discussion on the give-and-takes of RAM power consumption. Of course more NANDs will consume more power, but with less RAM, you're clearly going to have less cache...thus, more disk usage...and more power usage...

https://superuser.com/questions/40113/does-installing-larger-ram-means-consuming-more-energy

(Such an unexpected, yet intriguing reproach. I appreciate it...ensures that I'm not holding on to false beliefs as well)

If the user is not hitting the page file at 8GB, then what is gained by taking that to 16GB?

I have 8GB in this laptop and 16GB in my desktop. Neither hit the page file much - most of the time. Not even when starting a VM. However, if I load 6 VMs, then I'll need the page file. Or if I'm testing things with lots of browser tabs, then I'll need the page file.

It really depends on what a user is going to be doing most of the time. Just adding RAM might do more harm than good. Adding an SSD will vastly improve initial load times and boot/reboot times - but again, you don't reboot 80% of the time.

We are surely in agreement. I've actually starred this discussion as you caught me in the middle of a house move. lol And although I'm still moving in, I am cleaning out my email and noticed that I hadn't at least responded to your last response.

Although I agree that it matters what the User is doing with the machine to justify certain RAM configurations, I believe that everyone benefits from employing an SSD (where this discussion began, I believe). As we agree on that, there's nothing left but a Circle-Jerk.

A while ago (three years now), I became extremely annoyed in the "common approaches" of Virtual Memory implementation without any true logic behind it. The 2x or 1.5x approaches seemed reasonable, but if this was that straight forward, then why would Microsoft leave such room for manipulation...and why the vast differences in agreement (up to and including Techs and Enthusiasts who totally discarded using a pagefile at all.

You must keep in mind that the Pagefile, on top of all of this is NOT "additional RAM" nor a "cache file." It's most closely a "Swap File" but behaves in a significantly different way. Although now I pretty much leave it to Windows to decide what it needs (aka System Managed) while employing a pseudo RAID-0 of it across two SSDs (not my C in a RAID-0, I have two SSDs in my computer that do different jobs, and I have it System Managed across those two -- on my Server, anyway), I see absolutely nothing wrong with reserving 3x size for your pagefile if you have the additional space. Unlike RAM, it isn't really about using it up, it's about keeping Windows comfortable enough to put as many things in memory as possible.

Seems counter-intuitive, doesn't it?

This article by Mark Russinovich cleared up a lot for me back then. Maybe it'll give you a bit of insight as well...

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com...pushing-the-limits-of-windows-virtual-memory/

PS: As an aside, I don't know what could ever encourage a User (Tech or otherwise) to run six VMs on one machine, but surely, unless you're running Android Emulations or something of this ilk, there must be a more efficient way to do whatever it is that you're doing. I have a gateway VM on my six-core with four hardware, server GB connections (soon-to-be hosting local DNS, web caching, and maybe DHCP), and I can't seem to think of anything more I would have to virtualize at Home. #justcuriousreally

 

[UsernameIssues]

I referenced Mark's article in post #9.

I understand that you "see absolutely nothing wrong with reserving 3x size for your pagefile if you have the additional space."

How much RAM is consumed managing a page file?


re: 6 VMs
"there must be a more efficient way to do whatever it is that you're doing"
I have written scripts that control a proprietary business app to create/save files. With VMs, I can run multiple copies of this business app (and my scripts) at the same time. What could be more efficient?

 

[GSystems]

--Exactly my point above -- where I said that I simply leave it to System Managed at this point. Let Microsoft handle what they need; surely Windows is programmed to use this anyway.

...you didn't comment on the assertion of the illusory (but, surprisingly real) difference between pagefile and "cache," but I'm being particular at this point (aka splitting hair). Ultimately, if there's an issue where you're (anyone) is concerned about the amount of RAM that they'll use managing a pagefile, they should probably focus a bit more on acquiring more RAM...and if they're concerned about customization of their pagefile to maximize system performance, they should probably be looking at replacing more than the radio buttons of the Advanced tab. I think much of it is placebo at this point, since moving to System Managed and, now, Intel for my daily functions.

The problems with Windows is not in the User-Defined settings as much as the instructions from OS to Processor (sadly)...and much of that is decided well before we even encounter the PC. smh We live in crooked times. I haven't particularly joined the darkside as much as made room for it.

The difference is real.

Hopefully this discussion between us will assuage any further collisions and such regarding this pagefile "non-issue"...

And if we're still at a disagreement of the clear benefirs of SSD over HDD (yes, even in the mobile space), I am unsure of what more I could present you.

...

...and, I see. Well that answers my question about VMs on your laptop. lol

 

[UsernameIssues]

You (and I) are saying to let the OS manage the size of the page file...
...however, you add that you see no harm in manually setting the page file to be 3X RAM.

I was not concerned with the amount of RAM needed to manage that manually set 3X size. It was a rhetorical question designed to point out that some or all of that RAM will be wasted if the page file of that size is not used. I see that waste as a downside.


As far as your...
...assertion of the illusory (but, surprisingly real) difference between pagefile and "cache,"
and that the page file is not additional RAM:

Did I give the impression that the page file caches stuff? Did Mark R. speak to that? I'm not clear why you thought that I might comment on that point or the additional RAM point.

 

[Zenicablues]

Most attempts to optimize the pagefile are a waste of time. Typically there will be no measurable or noticeable gains with using any settings other than system managed.

There can be a benefit (not likely noticeable) by putting the pagefile on a separate physical drive. Putting it on a separate partition is a bad idea. Of course this assumes that the separate drive is of comparable performance as the system drive.

If you want the best performance then install the OS and games on an SSD. This will do more good than anything you could possibly do with the pagefile.

Seems that is only true ! Changing virtual memory is just waste of time !
If you find to try recommendations , will get totally different values and answers !
- Ask myself is Mark Russinovich's article regarding Pagefile use ... useful at all , different PC's, RAM's , Drive's & ,and more !!!
- Just canot be universal advice ! and in same time windows is very bad in automatic management, so what to do ? So as you say waste of time, leave it and forget about it ! Or buy more memory, better (if possible some gaming ) PC !
Thank You for smart answer !!!

 

[Layback Bear]

Here is my smart xxx universal answer from my post #11

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.

LMiller's post #8 you have quoted in you post hit the nail on the head.

Jack