Question about pagefile.sys

[letsdoamazing]

Do I need that in windows 7? I understand its a virtual memory kind of thing, but is it always needed?

 

[pparks1]

Always needed???? No
Do I ever turn mine off...even with 8GB of RAM???? No

 

[Dzomlija]

I think pparks1 has put it quite nicely.

The pagefile isn't always needed, and it's almost guaranteed to severly impact your performance in a negative way should you disable it...

 

[A Guy]

All the educated opinions say leave it be, and set to system managed. It's got more to do than with how much physical memory you have. A Guy

 

[Delphin]

Have a look at this link

Page file, memory, and other stuffs

.

I have 8 gig ram and my page file size 10 Gb configured in D Drive..

As far as i know, Pagefile is used whenever your computer requires memory more than your ram

Turning it off is not advised

 

[Bill2]

Let the pagefile be, at the system-managed size. Because:

1) Some apps simply won't run properly if the pagefile is disabled. AFAIK, you'll have problems running a virtual machine on a box with no pagefile, and some defrag utilities will also fail.

2) Most apps request much more memory than they'll ever use. So WMP might suddenly request 300 MB. In this scenario, 4GB becomes very small particularly if you're trying to play a game and maybe also have have itunes running in the background. A program like Photoshop may request for a gb or more of RAM at a time.

3) Most importantly, memory dumps (crash reports from BSODs, etc) will not get generated, if the page file is disabled.

 

[Jonathan_King]

Bill is correct. The page file should be set at 3x installed RAM, or better yet, system managed.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I'm always at a loss when this question is asked. At a loss for why someone would want to disable it, and what they hope that would achieve. Even in Windows XP, disabling it gave you nothing more than a placebo effect. Windows 7 isn't XP, however, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as XP in terms of "tweaking".

There's nothing to gain by disabling it, aside from an unstable system. Leave it be, and let the system manage it.

 

[letsdoamazing]

I'm always at a loss when this question is asked. At a loss for why someone would want to disable it, and what they hope that would achieve. Even in Windows XP, disabling it gave you nothing more than a placebo effect. Windows 7 isn't XP, however, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as XP in terms of "tweaking".

There's nothing to gain by disabling it, aside from an unstable system. Leave it be, and let the system manage it.

You shouldn't be at a loss, it was a question. I didn't know what it was for and why it takes up a large chunk of room. It was a question, and that is what I thought this forum was for.

 

[Jonathan_King]

I'm always at a loss when this question is asked. At a loss for why someone would want to disable it, and what they hope that would achieve. Even in Windows XP, disabling it gave you nothing more than a placebo effect. Windows 7 isn't XP, however, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as XP in terms of "tweaking".

There's nothing to gain by disabling it, aside from an unstable system. Leave it be, and let the system manage it.

You shouldn't be at a loss, it was a question. I didn't know what it was for and why it takes up a large chunk of room. It was a question, and that is what I thought this forum was for.

Yep, very true. You did the right thing by asking...too many people would go ahead and disable it without asking first.

 

[DeaconFrost]

You shouldn't be at a loss, it was a question. I didn't know what it was for and why it takes up a large chunk of room. It was a question, and that is what I thought this forum was for.

It is, but it is a question that hasn't been relevant for a few years now. The part I was at a loss for was what people hope to accomplish by disabling it. The vast majority of people who ask about disabling it do so because they were told or heard it would speed their systems up quite a bit. That isn't true now, and never was...which is why I was at a loss. I was wondering if you were a victim of misinformation from someone who recommended you disable it to speed up your system.

 

[letsdoamazing]

You shouldn't be at a loss, it was a question. I didn't know what it was for and why it takes up a large chunk of room. It was a question, and that is what I thought this forum was for.

It is, but it is a question that hasn't been relevant for a few years now. The part I was at a loss for was what people hope to accomplish by disabling it. The vast majority of people who ask about disabling it do so because they were told or heard it would speed their systems up quite a bit. That isn't true now, and never was...which is why I was at a loss. I was wondering if you were a victim of misinformation from someone who recommended you disable it to speed up your system.

No, I wasn't ever planning on disabling it. I work at a place that has a large amount of XP machines. Using SpaceMonger, it shows up as a large file, I then went home on my computer and did the same thing, it was also a large file. I was just wondering exactly what it does, and why its needed. Thats it. Hope that clears everything up.

Thanks everybody!

 

[Wishmaster]

I would like to add:

The only reason to alter the PF would be if you run a smaller SSD for the OS programs and free space is becoming a issue.

In this case, I would recommend manually setting the PF on the OS drive to a Min and MAX of 500MB.

Then, on a second HD, be it a spinning drive or secondary SSD, set as system managed.

If space is not a issue on the OS drive, leave it be IMHO.