Re: paging file neccessary or not ?
From: plb2862 (plb2862_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Mook: "Re: Can't boot without XP CD"
- Previous message: ProteanThread: "won't login into any account in safe mode"
- Maybe in reply to: brugnospamsia: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Next in thread: Rick \: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Reply: Rick \: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:12:44 -0800
Over a year now and no failures and no speed issues, It must be a fluke
although the point of having 2MB on each of the partitions helps in keeping
the system from crashing. It took a lot of research to find this solution.
And what I'm left with is a primary partition that can handle all (without
going over 7GB - so I can dual boot) of my OS primary programs without
slowing the system down. In my case it works and is efficient and that may
be because this system does Office documents and e-mail and not any intense
graphic manipulation.
"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uAQaLjQHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that
> placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an
> issue if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive head
> movement as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and the boot
> volume. If paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then this won't be
> a problem. I'm not sure how it would react to a memory dump on system
> failure.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
> Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a minimum
> of 2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low. Usually,
> it is set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some suggestions are
> 1½ to 3 times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could be 2 MB or 768 x
> 1½ = 1152 MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or 768 x 3 = 2304 MB.
> Personally, I don't use this general guide that is documented in MS KB and
> other sources. I have 512 MB and I set my minimum and maximum to 768 MB.
> All-be-it, I don't do severe processing (large graphic file processing)
> and I monitor my pagefile using a utility called pagemon.exe I only use
> approximately 33% - about 252 MB at the peak use. If you do a lot of
> intensive graphics manipulation, you need at least 1GB Physical RAM and I
> would also set the pagefile.sys to the recommended 1½ to 3 times Physical
> RAM. I know you have a bad memory slot but, if you needed to could you up
> the DIMMs on the slots you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is another
> technique that some MVPs won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have C:, D:,
> E:, F:, G:, (7GB each) and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB pagefile on
> each C: - F: partition and 760 MB on the H: partition which is totally
> dedicated to pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may want to
> know why 7GB on the partitions which has to do with future dual boot
> restrictions. The 3GB final partition is large enough to expand the
> pagefile.sys to 3 times the Physical RAM.
>
> "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Dear group,
>>
>> I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
>> her new PC.
>>
>> I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
>> DDR RAM.
>> (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
>> be
>> faulty.)
>>
>> I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
>> and
>> AVG antivirus.
>> (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
>>
>> I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in
>> task
>> manager (as well as just about everything else !)
>>
>> It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
>> outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
>> hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
>>
>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
>> has
>> improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes
>> no
>> matter how hard I push the machine .....
>>
>> Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
>> more I choose to fit ?
>> (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
>>
>> thanks...
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: Mook: "Re: Can't boot without XP CD"
- Previous message: ProteanThread: "won't login into any account in safe mode"
- Maybe in reply to: brugnospamsia: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Next in thread: Rick \: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Reply: Rick \: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
