Re: Consensus re swap file size?
- From: "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:18:58 -0400
Paging isn't such an issue as it was just a few years ago. Most PCs
today have 256+ physical memory in them. I have 1.0 Gigabyte of
Dual-Channel DDR and even with "Heavy" loading ( Audio mastering,
Virtual PCs) my pagefile use is almost negligible. However, it's still
a vital/core function of XP (2000, NT = which has it's roots in code
from DEC VMS (Virtual Memory System). I think you'll find in the
future versions of Windows a somewhat modified approach to the
setup/size of Pagefile space. If you are interested in a more "Techie"
explanation of the topic, read the following:
http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech
"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oh98j1pc83nia125du8bv9g40tlrhqfnto@xxxxxxxxxx
> "Uncle John" <unclejohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Terry
>>
>>My PC has 4 GB Ram: if virtual memory is set to system managed it will be
>>set to 3.5 GB. The system page file size in Windows XP+SP2 may ignore the
>>user settings for Virtual Memory in Control panel: they may revert to a
>>system default if the Registry has more than one setting for
>>HKLM\System\ControlSetnnn
>>where "nnn" is the number of the last ControlSet before CurrentControlSet.
>>
>>Though Windows does not necessarily use all the pagefile set, it will
>>reserve disk space which is then not available to the user for
>>applications
>>and processes.
>>
>>You can check how large your system managed page file is on the DISK by
>>looking for pagefile.sys in the root directory of C:\ and checking the
>>properties. Sometimes they are quite different to the settings in Control
>>Panel for Virtual Memory
>>Uncle John
>>
>>"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in [clipped]i>
>>> Best bet is to just let windows do its thing with the page/swap. Keep in
>>> mind that while it may reserve that much, it doesnt mean its using that
>>> much.
>>
>
> Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm puzzled mainly by the fact
> that swap file size set goes up linearly with RAM size. Couldn't you
> justifiably argue that it should go down? The more RAM you *actually*
> have, the less *virtual* RAM you need?
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Restarting Xp Professional
- Next by Date: Services at boot: safe settings
- Previous by thread: Re: Restarting Xp Professional
- Next by thread: Re: Consensus re swap file size?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
