Re: paging file neccessary or not ?
From: Rick \ (rick_at_mvps.org)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Rick \: "Re: Quick Launch Icon"
- Previous message: Rick \: "Re: Can't get out of safe mode"
- In reply to: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Next in thread: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Reply: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:09:51 -0500
Why the 7GB partitions for dual booting?
-- 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:P_vUd.27779$Tt.16466@fed1read05... > Over a year now and no failures and no speed issues, It must be a fluke > although the point of having 2MB on each of the partitions helps in > keeping the system from crashing. It took a lot of research to find this > solution. And what I'm left with is a primary partition that can handle > all (without going over 7GB - so I can dual boot) of my OS primary > programs without slowing the system down. In my case it works and is > efficient and that may be because this system does Office documents and > e-mail and not any intense graphic manipulation. > > "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:uAQaLjQHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that >> placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an >> issue if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive head >> movement as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and the >> boot volume. If paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then this >> won't be a problem. I'm not sure how it would react to a memory dump on >> system failure. >> >> -- >> Best of Luck, >> >> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ >> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone >> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone >> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org >> >> "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:%alUd.24047$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: Rick \: "Re: Quick Launch Icon"
- Previous message: Rick \: "Re: Can't get out of safe mode"
- In reply to: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Next in thread: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Reply: plb2862: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
