Re: eliminating the swap file
- From: "BillW50" <BillW50@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:33:37 -0500
In news:h4sc4l$h2f$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Buffalo typed on Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:47 -0600:
Tracey wrote:
I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro
to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C:
is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?
I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).
This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).
Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey
I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with
a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the
disk activity.
AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some
GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the
advice on it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to
your system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make
Win98SE use all your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure don't
know about Win2000Pro. Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective
rather than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid
of the Swap file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.
Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason to
turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives). One
reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the longevity is
linked to the number of write cycles. So write less, the longer they
last. The second reason is especially for the cheaper SSDs, is that
writes are much slower. So there are two good reasons right there.
So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000 swapfile off. It works okay if
you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000 pops up a
window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you need to click
on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and nothing happens
anyway since you have it set at zero.
After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB thrown
in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to increase the
virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot. Click on it once
and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile over 200MB and the
same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer it will take before
the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to be the best setting so
far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.
I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't complain
one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to turn the
warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.
--
Bill
Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195)
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: eliminating the swap file
- From: Tracey
- Re: eliminating the swap file
- From: Buffalo
- Re: eliminating the swap file
- From: Sid Elbow
- Re: eliminating the swap file
- Prev by Date: Re: Browser launch and booting problems
- Next by Date: Re: eliminating the swap file
- Previous by thread: Browser launch and booting problems
- Next by thread: Re: eliminating the swap file
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
