Page file question.

[TheBull]

I want to move my page file to a partition on my other hard drive. How big should I make it?
Do you guys have some more info regarding this process?

Thanks!!

 

[scrooge]

i always just use the recommended size.
for my system it's
minimum allowed: 16mb
recommended: 11134mb
hope that helps you

scrooge

 

[TheBull]

The recommended size being, size of your memory times 1.5. Right?

 

[scrooge]

scrooge

 

[swarfega]

The recommended size being, size of your memory times 1.5. Right?

yes 1.5 times your psysical memory. I have min max set to the same to reduce drive fragmentation.

 

[Brink]

I want to move my page file to a partition on my other hard drive. How big should I make it?
Do you guys have some more info regarding this process?

Thanks!!

Hi Bull,

In addition to the above posts, this can help give you more information on this.

Virtual Memory Paging File - Change - Vista Forums

Hope this helps,
Shawn

 

[TheBull]

Thanks for all the help and info guys! Definite increase in performance!!

 

[weh]

Some points on page files . . .

Some points on page files . . .

• If you have only ONE physical hard drive -- even if it is partitioned -- leave the page file in with the operating system. Putting the page file in a second partition just makes Windows have to work a little bit harder.
• If you have TWO physical hard drives, the second one is probably a better location for the page file. I say 'probably' because it can depend on how you use the system. The page file is best located where there is the least file activity when its services are needed. Some applications, PhotoShop, for example, have their own cache/scratch file systems that can be pretty intensive. Having the page file on the same drive -- even worse, in a different partition on the same drive -- does no good. Here, knowing the characteristics of your applications and experimenting are the order of the day.
• If you have THREE physical hard drives, odds are good that the best location for the page file is on the odd man out -- the drive that is neither your system drive nor the drive that is your primary work space. Aga, experiment. If you 3rd drive is an ancient slow-poke, it probably isn't a great idea.
• As for the size of your page file, my best advice is to use a DEcreasing, sliding scale with the following parameters: (a) for a system with 2GB (or less) memory installed, set page file to 3x installed memory with a 4GB minimum; (b) for a system with 4GB memory installed, ramp that number down to 2x installed memory; and (c) for a system with 8GB (or more) memory installed, drop the multiplier to 1.5x installed memory. Also, note that a large page file may not be needed at all -- it all depends on the applications you use and how you use them and how many you use simultaneously. The 4GB minimum is probably a good estimate for any system running any version of Window from 32-bit XP to 64-bit Win7; however, if you are single-tasking, or browsing while running various office applications, you probably don't need more that the 4GB page file, regardless of your actual installed memory.
• It is important to set the page file minimum size and maximum size to the same number for more reason that keeping a tidy file structure. Windows not having to adjust file size dynamically lessens its overhead, resulting in it being slightly more responsive.
• It is possible to set page files on multiple drives. It is my understanding (I could be wrong here, but I think I understand correctly) that 64-bit versions of Windows will use the least active (and, therefore, most quickly accessible) of the page files at the time it needs to write out data. (This was supposedly a feature of 64-bit XP; it was not a feature of 32-bit XP. I don't know if it applies to the 32-bit versions of Vista or Win7.) Assuming this to be correct -- someone please post a correction if I am wrong in my understanding of this feature -- then it would probably be advantageous to keep a 4GB page file on the system drive and a larger one on your second or least used drive. I suspect that experimentation is in order to see if this applies for your applications and usage habits. There could easily be no gain in performance at all and you might simply be wasting drive space.
• Finally, a page file is no substitute for for the real thing. While it is quite possible to create a 16GB page file on a computer having only 1GB of actual RAM installed, you'd be creating a throttling monster. The overhead of keeping track of all the paged data would be so great that your machine would slow to a crawl, defeating the purpose. More actual physical memory equates to needing the services of the page file much less often.

 

[Brink]

You're welcome Bull.

 

[swarfega]

Nice advice Weh (if badly worded).

 

[RST101]

Does a page file work as well (if at all) on a flash drive? Never heard any one speak of it and I have never tried so I'm just wondering.

 

[weh]

Nice advice Weh (if badly worded).

Thanks -- I've never been known to use two or three words when eleven or seventeen would do! lol Want to volunteer to be my editor?

Does a page file work as well (if at all) on a flash drive? Never heard any one speak of it and I have never tried so I'm just wondering.

Haven't tried it. No reason why it couldn't work except that, at least in the past, Windows got a bit upset if its page file disappears on it in mid-cache (or whatever).

 

[swarfega]

It might be better to use the flash drive for readyboost if the flash drive is fast enough.

 

[RST101]

It might be better to use the flash drive for readyboost if the flash drive is fast enough.

But isn't that essentially what a page file is? Extra space if and when needed. Mine is fast enough but don't see any gains from it when I do employ it for that purpose. I think if you have got enough ram then why bother with ready boost.

 

[weh]

As I understand it, 'readyboost' is a technology whereby Windows aggregates files and/or bits of code that it might need quickly -- based on patterns of past use -- onto a device that can deliver those bits more rapidly than can a typical hard drive; whereas, a 'page file' is where Windows stores the bits and pieces of code cluttering up its memory while it is still using them -- but not at that very moment -- when it has a more immediate need for other code for which it has no room in active memory, thus the need for making space by paging to file.

Both are caching systems; however, their purposes and priorities are different. Having one of each on very fast USB flash drives would probably be ideal -- two different USB drives plugged into different controller channels (IOW, not into the same pair of sockets).

 

[swarfega]

Yeah your essentially correct, some people have reported faster program loading with a readyboost device active.

Pagefile and readyboost do different things. Windows uses the paging file as temporary storage for the memory dump whereas with ReadyBoost its caching system applies to all disk content, not just the page file or system DLLs.

 

[weh]

On my primary system (see system specs), readyboost seems to have no effect at all. Also, I've tried various page file sizes and locations with little or no change in performance. I've settled on a pair of page files: 4GB on my system drive and 8GB on the extra drive in my 4-drive expansion cage. However, once I get the final version of Win.7.x64, that position will be taken by my 2nd 150GB VelociRaptor -- the OS will then be installed on a 2-drive RAID-0 array. At that point, I'll probably just leave the entire 12GB page file on the system drive array. I seriously doubt that any other configuration short of an SSD could be any faster.

 

[swarfega]

Well its not surprising with your top range system specs. You could probably disable pagefile altogether. Although be aware that some apps still require it and it might make the system unstable.

 

[weh]

Somewhat off-topic, but . . .

Nikon's very poorly written NX2 software crashes very nicely, taking the computer with it, requiring a power off/on cycle when there is no page file at all. When the page file exists, NX2 still crashes nicely, but the computer survives. What amazed me was that NX2 actually installed and ran on Win.7.x64 in the first place. Its problems appear to be universal -- not OS specific. Nikon makes great lenses and cameras, but their software sucks. I've got PhotoShop, but my favorite is Bibble.

 

[Jon55]

Is there any proven benefit to having your pagefile on a separate HDD? I've read that the performance differences are minimal. Any benchmarks?