Re: paging file neccessary or not ?
From: plb2862 (plb2862_at_cox.net)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:50:58 -0800
Because I have an older system with the 8 GB barrier in the BIOS. All boot
sectors need to be located within the first 8 GB to boot with this AMI BIOS.
Linux use the BIOS only for booting. All you have to do is, to install the
boot-Partition within the BIOS limit and the rest of the disk is available
after their IDE-drivers have loaded.
Here are some limitations of the older system BIOS:
Until end of 97, beginning of 1998 the BIOS was limited to 8 GB.
(2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB) on Phoenix equipped systems.
Until End of 1994 504 MB
Until End of 1997/Begin of 1998 8 GB
Until Mid of 1999 32 GB
"Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Why the 7GB partitions for dual booting?
> Best of Luck,
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> "plb2862" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>> 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
>>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
>>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>>> "plb2862" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>> 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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>>> Dear group,
>>>> I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed
>>>> her new PC.
>>>> I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of
>>>> DDR RAM.
>>>> (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out
>>>> to be
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> more I choose to fit ?
>>>> (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?