Re: eliminating the swap file

In news:eyMEDkbGKHA.2516@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Tracey typed on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:49:17 -0500:
BillW50 wrote:
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.


Thank, I'm checking out RAMDisks
Any suggestions or tips for what one (should/should not) do?
Did you use the performance monitor (or other tool) to asses the size?

After a lot of experimenting...
By that do you mean start small and work up or start big and work
down?
Thanks, Tracey
Just for the record: I set the minimum paging file size to 2MB and
maximum to 2048MB.
Then I started the performance monitor to monitor memory and the page
file. The maximum page file use was about 91MB
(normal???/small???/large???) and I have seen the maximum available
memory about as low as 1500MB.

Hi Tracey! I use gavotramdisk.zip (it's free) for a RAMDisk. And set it
up as a fixed drive (using Drive R) and that is about all of the tricks
to it. And I have found Windows 2000 is the quietest with at least with
a 20MB pagefile. So I send it to the RAMDisk and set the temps and
Internet Temporary folder to the RAMDisk as well. I use a 512MB RAMDisk,
but it doesn't need to be this high with Windows 2000. But hey with 2GB
of RAM, you don't need all of that RAM for Windows 2000 anyway. <wink>

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2


.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: System too slow
    ... You can download fastboot-winxp.exe from ... By default Windows tries to double the ... I also suggest getting more RAM. ... disabled my swap file and ran my system for 10 months with no swap file ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: eliminating the swap file
    ... Pro to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram ... Windows 2000 does not run without a pagefile, ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: eliminating the swap file
    ... Pro to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram ... Windows 2000 does not run without a pagefile, ... All I know is creating a 20MB pagefile and throwing into a RAMDisk seems to keep Windows 2000 happy enough with only one nag screen at boot. ... Possibly that is because the pagefile is created by the Session Manager well before the RAM disk is created, ergo the Session Manager has no place to create the pagefile when the system is booting, so it creates a temporary pagefile in the System32 folder and throws up the nag screen. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: eliminating the swap file
    ... to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C: ... yes I have turned Windows 2000 swapfile off. ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
  • Re: Swap file
    ... Thanks for reply but I need a solution on how to clean the swapfile. ... Its only while using Explorer I got problem. ... My question was how to clean the swap file as Windows cannot manage it? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
Loading