Give the Pagefile it's own partition?

[Oubadah]

I have:

1x Samsung F3 1TB: Windows
RAID 0 array 2x Samsung F3 1TB: Games
1x Samsung F3 1TB: General Storage

16GB RAM
Windows 7 x64

My intention is to put a fixed pagefile on the third drive, 1.5x the RAM (min 24GB, max 24GB).

Should I make a dedicated ~24.1GB partition at the beginning of the drive for the pagefile (to make sure it doesn't ever get fragmented)?

 

[DustSailor]

Hello Oubadah,

I would recommend keeping at least a small paging file on your OS drive, and if you have less than 6GB RAM, either adding more paging file space to your main OS drive, or creating a separate location (in addition) for it on another drive with more space. There is next to zero benefit with messing with the paging file, unless you are attempting to save more of your your main drive. There is zero benefit in deleting it.

The partition is another matter. I wouldn't think you would need to create one specifically for the paging file, and I am not sure if there would be any benefit. Certainly wasting 24.1GB on a paging file seems wastefull, doesn't it?

I myself have a small space dedicatd to Paging files on my main drive, and I have given some space on another drive for additional paging files. I have installed 12GB of RAM

 

[carwiz]

No. In fact, with 24GB of memory, I would set virtual memory to minimum or just enough for a mini-dump (Maybe 2MB). Whatever you specify, Windows will use and you sure don't want to be writing 24GB to a spinner (HDD). Virtual memory is not likely to get fragmented. It's written and read sequentially. Unless there's a good reason to be running a game AND several large memory-hog production applications like CAD and Video Editing, 24GB should get you through just about any requirement without VM.

Ops, I mistyped. The 24GB should be 16GB--Your current memory.

 

[DustSailor]

Carwiz, I believe he has 16GB memory, but you bring up a subject I hadn't thought of.

I think windows allocates more paging file space to computers with more RAM, which isn't at all necessary. Though I would never do away with the paging file, certainly with so much RAM, you only need a very small paging file.

 

[Oubadah]

Hello Oubadah,

I would recommend keeping at least a small paging file on your OS drive, and if you have less than 6GB RAM, either adding more paging file space to your main OS drive, or creating a separate location (in addition) for it on another drive with more space. There is next to zero benefit with messing with the paging file, unless you are attempting to save more of your your main drive. There is zero benefit in deleting it.

I've always been told that the pagefile is best put on a separate drive to the OS (assuming said drive is as fast or faster than the OS drive).

The partition is another matter. I wouldn't think you would need to create one specifically for the paging file, and I am not sure if there would be any benefit. Certainly wasting 24.1GB on a paging file seems wastefull, doesn't it?

'Waste' doesn't concern me. They're 1TB drives, and I'm already short stroking the other three to 25%, so 24GB off this one is nothing. I'm only concerned with optimal performance.

No. In fact, with 24GB of memory,

I don't have 24GB of RAM. I have 16GB or RAM, and the 24GB was the page file recommended to me (1.5x RAM).

I would set virtual memory to minimum or just enough for a mini-dump (Maybe 2MB).

The minimum is 16MB. That was my original plan: to set it at 16MB, but then a bunch of people recommended against that (for the same reason they advised against disabling the pagefile altogether - they said some programs don't run if they don't see a pagefile, or if they see one that is too small).

Whatever you specify, Windows will use and you sure don't want to be writing 24GB to a spinner (HDD).

Why would Windows just 'use' virtual RAM for the hell of it? I thought it only got used when all the physical RAM capacity is filled up, and for dumping the contents of the RAM in a crash (hence the large size recommendations).

Virtual memory is not likely to get fragmented. It's written and read sequentially.

When it's controlled by Windows dynamically, it gets fragmented. I'm not sure about when it has a maximum size equal to the minimum size (fixed). That's why I'm asking.

 

[DustSailor]

I've always been told that the pagefile is best put on a separate drive to the OS (assuming said drive is as fast or faster than the OS drive).
...
The minimum is 16MB. That was my original plan: to set it at 16MB, but then a bunch of people recommended against that (for the same reason they advised against disabling the pagefile altogether - they said some programs don't run if they don't see a pagefile, or if they see one that is too small).

The same reason they recommend against complete removal of the paging file is the reason you shouldn't completely move it to another drive. The OS uses it. You can reduce its size on the OS, but it is a bad idea to just move it off of it. Not a terrible idea, and it can work, just without any benefit to you, and you may get errors at times.

 

[Oubadah]

I've always been told that the pagefile is best put on a separate drive to the OS (assuming said drive is as fast or faster than the OS drive).
...
The minimum is 16MB. That was my original plan: to set it at 16MB, but then a bunch of people recommended against that (for the same reason they advised against disabling the pagefile altogether - they said some programs don't run if they don't see a pagefile, or if they see one that is too small).

The same reason they recommend against complete removal of the paging file is the reason you shouldn't completely move it to another drive. The OS uses it. You can reduce its size on the OS, but it is a bad idea to just move it off of it. Not a terrible idea, and it can work, just without any benefit to you, and you may get errors at times.

What errors? It's not like it's a removable drive, and it's not on the verge of failing.

Are you saying that, not only do some programs need to see a pagefile, but they need to see it on the OS drive? I've never heard of that before.

 

[F5ing]

Should I make a dedicated ~24.1GB partition at the beginning of the drive for the pagefile (to make sure it doesn't ever get fragmented)?

I have done the same to a couple of XP Pro machines in the past: make sure the partition was first on the faster disk (on the outer edge), only large enough for the pagefile sized 1.5 x RAM (plus a little free space), and formatted as FAT32 (no NTFS overhead).

Not to discourage you or anything, but for the way I used these machines, I didn't see that much of an improvement in performance. I'd be interested in how you make out.

 

[F5ing]

By the way, on those two XP Pro machines I had done that with there was no pagefile left on the system drive, only on the faster secondary drive.

I had read recommendations against doing it (even by MS if I remember correctly), but other stuff I read convinced me to give it a try. I mean, I could always go back. But, XP Pro never complained nor any other program, so I left them that way.

But again, those were XP machines, not 7. And don't know if I ever used any apps that wanted to see that there is a pagefile on the system drive.

 

[Oubadah]

My general use/browsing PC has 16GB of RAM, and I've had the pagefile disabled completely for almost a year now with no side effects. That PC has fairly light use though.

The more I read on this topic, the more thoroughly confused I become.

 

[F5ing]

Well, apparently someone has done it on a Win7 machine. See post by bbearren http://www.sevenforums.com/general-...other-than-pagefile-hiberfil.html#post1800979

Also note that it is supposed to be FAT32, not FAT as I originally stated, due to the size of the pagefile.

 

[carwiz]

16MB is correct for the minimum. I couldn't remember off the top of my head but most mini-dumps are less than 2MB. Sorry for the error. But yes, Windows will use all that you assign and try to swap real memory to virtual memory at every chance. It can be used as file storage too (buffer) so Windows will try to keep it full based on programs or services running. Windows assigns a Page Pool to every process running. Take a look at the paging faults before you decide. These aren't really errors. It's the number of times Windows didn't find the data it needs in real memory and an IO was required from either the page file or from the disk file. Page faults happen a lot for programs that are random IO dependent. The problem is that filling the page file takes a read and a write to the HDD. The larger the page file, the more time spent reading and writing to the page file and another read to retrieve it. A large page file on HDDs is counter productive in my belief. Since you have 16GB of RAM, I would go with the minimum. Windows will let you know if you're running short and you can increase it without restarting. Or you can monitor page faults in real time through Task Manager and watch your production or gaming processes. But unless the file being accessed fits entirely into real memory, you really don't gain anything by having a large page file. Processes that are IO bound will remain so in most cases.

 

[DustSailor]

a similar post you may find interesting (and perhaps helpful in some way): http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/172244-random-page-file-errors-2.html

 

[DustSailor]

I stand corrected about not moving a paging file off of your main hard drive (you can): Learn Best Practices for Optimizing the Virtual Memory Configuration
^ very good read

 

[Duzzy]

I stand corrected about not moving a paging file off of your main hard drive (you can): Learn Best Practices for Optimizing the Virtual Memory Configuration
^ very good read

+1

Using multiple page files split over two or more physical disks is an even better idea, because your disk controller can process multiple requests to read or write data concurrently.

I don't know anything about the above but a while ago I read something that said Windows would use the pagefile on the disk with the least activity.

As for a dedicated partition I don't think thats necessary, don't quote me on this but I believe WinXP actually reserved the space for the page file on the disk, don't know about Windows 7. It does create a file equal to your set size but I guess if Windows enlarges it then it may become spread over different regions of the disk.

 

[pincushion]

I have a system with 4GB of ram and I have a fixed pagefile of the same size on the first partition of my second drive - both drives are 7200 rpm drives. The partition is 6Gb and the file is located in the middle for some reason. I have used Fat32 for the partition but now use NTFS as there appears to be no difference. I probably am a light user as the pagefile rarely gets used - I can hear the drive starting up. With your amount of ram I would probably do similar but with less than 8GB pagefile although only use would determine if this would be adequate. I don't seem to have any problems with not having a pagefile on C:

I used much the same on my XP system for many years and didn't have problems there either.

:huh: