Pagefile.sys

[smarteyeball]

As such, while I understand the "experts" advise against disabling the page file, I don't see the need for it and in my case set to disabled.

Yeah, silly "experts". What would they know? :sarc:




There has been some seriously erroneous shit spread in this thread.

   Note

All the average end user needs to know about the pagefile is: leave the thing alone.

And for those have, don't bloody argue about why you all know better than the company whose Operating System it is. You don't.

 

[Digerati]

don't bloody argue about why you all know better than the company whose Operating System it is. You don't.

And I don't either! Which is exactly why I did the research, and provided links - as did my colleagues.

 

[smarteyeball]

And I don't either! Which is exactly why I did the research, and provided links - as did my colleagues.

Fingers not pointed at you mate.

 

[Digerati]

Fingers not pointed at you mate.

I did not take it that way, so not to worry!

 

[pallesenw]

I did not! Don't go making stuff up or twist my words around. I said "some", and other SevenGurus provided examples.

The number is irrelevant. You argued that "some" applications are programmed to directly save data in the page file (that is how I read it). That was my point.

14 recognized experts on this forum

In the last few posts I've tried to make a point. Just because you have a "guru"-badge on this forum doesn't make you an expert. What some of the gurus here have said is just nonsense. I like the part where it is argued that disabling the page file will disable virtual memory.

Anyways, my point about the page file has slipped passed you.

 

[Cr00zng]

Yeah, silly "experts". What would they know? :sarc:

The reason for quotation of the word expert to indicate all of them instead of spelling them out, MS, SevenGurus, etc.,; it was not my intent to imply "silly" with that. It was your choice...

Some of the people in this thread indicated that programs may not run correctly, game play will suffer, etc., and that was not true on my computers regardless if it was Vista or Windows 7. It is also not true for other systems that I've built and had the page file disabled.

Nor did I advocate disabling the page file. Demanding to leave the page file enabled and calling people names (implied or otherwise) who does not comply is, well silly...

 

[Digerati]

The number is irrelevant. You argued that "some" applications are programmed to directly save data in the page file (that is how I read it). That was my point.

(1) This is a technical forum. Numbers are very relevant - ESPECIALLY when you attribute those numbers to someone else. Telling others someone said something when you know that is not true... ...call it what you want, I know what I call that.

(2) I said some programs (including Windows) expect to find a PF and I said some programs use the PF. I did not say millions and I did not say some programs are programmed to directly save data in the page file (except the OS). I am not a programmer, I already said I don't pretend to be a programmer. That's why I don't pretend to know better than Microsoft.

If you are going to quote me, quote me. Do not paraphrase because you change the meaning. That's unprofessional in a technical discussion, and not cool.

The point I was making is there is NO evidence suggesting deleting the Page File is beneficial. "Is not needed" does NOT mean "delete" nor does it suggest "deleting the Page File is beneficial". And there has been absolutely no evidence presented suggesting, even in the slightest, that there are any benefits. And furthermore, no one has even presented a link to any recognized expert that says, if lots of RAM, disable your PF.

(3) I was wrong. I said I have been pleading since Post #50 for you guys to provide one shred of supporting evidence. That was incorrect. On page 3 of this thread, in Post #25, I said,

There is absolutely no reputable source (a real testing facility) that has reported any gains from disabling the page file. If you find one, link it here.

Here we are, 6 months later on page 13 at post #127, and not one of you has posted even one link to anything that suggests disabling the page file has any benefits whatsoever. And yet, you continue arguing. That's sad.

Just because you have a "guru"-badge on this forum doesn't make you an expert.

You are right. The badge does not make the expert. The badge simply means you have already demonstrated you are an expert, and you have been recognized by other experts for it. That makes it pretty special, IMO.

But no one is an expert in all areas of IT. So to that, as I noted before, these silly experts are not so vain they expect everyone to automatically take their words as the Gospel. So they back up their words with links to supporting evidence.

 

[pallesenw]

This is a technical forum. Numbers are very relevant

Well, I argue it depends on the context. Anyways, I think the big number came from when you said that I couldn't possible know how the many, many applications out there were programmed to use or not use the page file.

But no one is an expert in all areas of IT. So to that, as I noted before, these silly experts are not so vain they expect everyone to automatically take their words as the Gospel. So they back up their words with links to supporting evidence.

The guru that said disabling the page file will result in disabling virtual memory backed it up with several links. The problem is, he didn't understand what he was reading, so he got it all wrong. That was my point. You drew the badge-card and said that when the gurus have spoken then it must be true.

 

[Wishmaster]

One that comes to mind right off hand is Everquest 2.

I have 8GB of RAM in my machine. With the PF disabled, the game would CTD after when there was alot going on. Usually within 10-15 minutes of being up and running.

It always gives the error, "Virtual Memory Error. System out of Memory"
Yet, looking at the task manager, it would show something like 4GB out 8GB in use at the time of crash. So it was not out of physical memory.
Turning the PF back on, and no more crashes.


So stating no program needs a PF is not at all true. Some need and expect one to be present.

This is one example, but there are obviously many more.
Some simply will start at all. Others may run but with issues.

Just because you have not run into such a issue yet, does not mena you ever will.

 

[pallesenw]

If your game cannot work without a page file then it is a bug, it is not because it is programmed to use it.

 

[Wishmaster]

If your game cannot work without a page file then it is a bug, it is not because it is programmed to use it.

The opposite actually.

Many applications, and some games, expect it to be there.

 

[pallesenw]

The opposite actually.

Many applications, and some games, expect it to be there.

Let me repeat what I said before: You cannot program your application to actually use the page file. There is no API to do so. That is my point.

There can be bugs, and then there can be programmers that might be frighten that their applications run out of memory, if there is not configured one. That is something else.

And then there are all the rumours. How often have I not seen the argument that photoshop cannot run without a page file.

 

[Digerati]

I think the big number came from when you said that I couldn't possible know how the many, many applications out there were programmed to use or not use the page file.

Perhaps that demonstrates my ignorance of programming - since I made a career supporting hardware AND avoiding programming with utmost earnest, I make no apologies for that. My comment still illustrates my point that neither you nor I know the numbers. And regardless the reason why, or the technical process, the fact remains, there are programs (as shown with previously posted links) that expect to find a PF and fail to work properly when one is not found. It's been said many times before, and Wishmaster just reiterated it.

You drew the badge-card and said that when the gurus have spoken then it must be true.

See, there you go again, and your twisting of words is to the point where I think it rude. I "drew the badge-card" but in the same draw I explained how the gurus are not so arrogant as to expect readers will automatically accept their words as "The Gospel". So they provide corroborating evidence.

But also, I asked earlier if you have been following this thread - clearly you have not. You engaged me in this thread here. My argument has been all along that there is no benefit to disabling the Page File, not how memory is used.

I don't care how Windows was coded to use a page file. Users don't need to know how Windows was coded to use a page file. Users just need to know what to do with it.

And the answer for the vast majority of the nearly 1 billion Windows users out there is to just let Windows manage it. If you know what you are doing and take the time to properly analyze the results, then setting a fixed size, especially when low on free disk space, may be appropriate. But there is no published evidence to be found that even suggests disabling the page file provides any benefit. And there is nothing, no white paper, KB article, review site that recommends disabling the page file.

I'm only here to say, don't disable the page file. Disabling the PF provides no benefit. Disabling the PF will result in lost memory dumps - often valuable for troubleshooting. It may result in "low memory" errors and may prevent some programs expecting to find a PF from installing or running properly.

 

[pallesenw]

the fact remains, there are programs (as shown with previously posted links) that expect to find a PF and fail to work properly when one is not found. It's been said many times before, and Wishmaster just reiterated it.

We are back to the need-part. If you have a bugged application for which there are no bugfixes - then you have a need for it.

What about the telnet-service? I can argue that it must never be disabled, because there exist programs that cannot work without it.

How can they know what his needs are?

Is still a valid point.

 

[Cr00zng]

One that comes to mind right off hand is Everquest 2.

I have 8GB of RAM in my machine. With the PF disabled, the game would CTD after when there was alot going on. Usually within 10-15 minutes of being up and running.

It always gives the error, "Virtual Memory Error. System out of Memory"
Yet, looking at the task manager, it would show something like 4GB out 8GB in use at the time of crash. So it was not out of physical memory.
Turning the PF back on, and no more crashes.


So stating no program needs a PF is not at all true. Some need and expect one to be present.

This is one example, but there are obviously many more.

Some simply will start at all. Others may run but with issues.

Just because you have not run into such a issue yet, does not mena you ever will.

I don't doubt that there are programs that will give you the "out of physical memory" errors. Should my machine experience that, I'd just activate the page file, but have not had the need for it as of yet.

I am curious now and maybe my knowledge in this area should be refreshed...

Windows present memory to the application as a single continuous memory space that is available for the app in question. This memory space is made up from physical and virtual memory. The application in itself has no knowledge of the type of actual memory it has received from the operating system. In which case, what difference does it make the type of memory that is available for Windows to manage?

As long as the app is asking for memory that Windows can assign, there should be no issue. If there's not enough memory, then the end user can have a choice. Enable the page file and/or increase the size of the physical memory.

Some applications may check the size of physical memory and request the same from the OS. In which when the page file is disabled, it'll give the out of memory error.

Again, I am curious now and not trying to fan the flames...

 

[Digerati]

How can they know what his needs are?

Is still a valid point.

Thank you! You just proved my point again. Since we as tech support providers do not know the needs of the posters, it is bad advice to tell a user to disable his page file - because, ONCE AGAIN, there is no benefit in doing so.

 

[Wishmaster]

As we are all ware, a 32 bit application only gets 2GB of address space.

I too was under the assumption that that consisted of Physical and Virtual memory.

But through the course of this, I too am left questioning:
Why do some applications crash, or refuse to run if a PF is not present?
Even if theres plenty of physical memory?


Perhaps, when a application (such as in my example) starts hitting its 2GB limit in physical memory, it starts paging it out. Effectively giving the app more space.

This was just a thought, and Im looking for a definitive answer myself.
I did think address space was Physical + Virtual.

For the record, I too have experimented with no PF at all. And for the most part, everything seemed OK. But I did run into a few issues, and have since just left it on. IMHO, there as really nothing gained from it being off.

 

[cluberti]

As we are all ware, a 32 bit application only gets 2GB of address space.

Unless of course compiled with the LARGEADDRESSAWARE linker flag. Then it has access to a 3GB process space (VA) if the system is configured for it, and all 4GB of WOW64 address space on an x64 system if compiled LARGEADDRESSAWARE (no flags need to be set on an x64 OS for this to happen either - it is native to WOW64 to do this as there is no kernel space for a 32bit kernel on a 64bit OS, hence all 4GB of VA are available to a 32bit process in WOW64 if compiled LARGEADDRESSAWARE).

I too was under the assumption that that consisted of Physical and Virtual memory.

Right, virtual address space and RAM have nothing at all to do with one another, other than the memory manager is responsible for mapping VA pages into physical pages, or into PF allocations, or both (depending on how the allocation is made from the application).

But through the course of this, I too am left questioning:
Why do some applications crash, or refuse to run if a PF is not present?
Even if theres plenty of physical memory?

Because, as mentioned previously, there *are* allocation function flags that will physically back a page in memory with a page in the paging file (mapping views of files, for example, come to mind right away). If the application makes one of these API calls, and there's no PF, you get a failed allocation. If the app doesn't handle this / allow this properly or at all, then you get a second chance exception, and an app crash (and that may actually be the desired behavior as well).

Perhaps, when a application (such as in my example) starts hitting its 2GB limit in physical memory, it starts paging it out. Effectively giving the app more space.

A 32bit application would simply start throwing out of memory errors, even when on WOW64. The app only get the allotted VA, and if / when the app starts to get into alloc failures of VA, it will start hitting that out of memory condition. How it handles it, of course, is up to the app, but most don't handle it well for sure.

 

[Wishmaster]

Thanks Cluberti

 

[pallesenw]

Because, as mentioned previously, there *are* allocation function flags that will physically back a page in memory with a page in the paging file (mapping views of files, for example, come to mind right away). If the application makes one of these API calls, and there's no PF, you get a failed allocation. If the app doesn't handle this / allow this properly or at all, then you get a second chance exception, and an app crash (and that may actually be the desired behavior as well).

Not true. There are no such flags. This again are just rumours floating around.

If you read carefully what Mark Russinovich has to say about the allocation functions, he too will telll you that it is not true. Those page file-backed sections do NOT need a page file. The name just confuses many people.