Re: Do I need a Page File?

http://www.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech

http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm

By default windows will use the pagefile whether needed specifically for
paging out physical memory or not. Was not designed to not use a swapfile,
and will slow the system down if not available.

--
Jonny
"Jim" <null@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YOqhf.33604$qw.10572@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eC$34ZT8FHA.1028@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > boe wrote:
> >
> > > I have 2 GIGs of ram. I don't think I've ever seen my task manager
> > > tell me I was using more than 1 GIG of RAM. I'd like to avoid it
> > > ever being touched. Can I do that or does Windows XP really need the
> > > page file to run?
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Note two important points:
> >
> > 1. Windows preallocates things to memory, before it even needs them; in
> many
> > cases some of those preallocations are never used. Some of those
> > preallocations are made in the page file. If there is no page file, all
> > those allocations which will never be used have to made in real memory.
> The
> > result is that getting rid of the page files means that you will never
be
> > able to use all of your real memory.
> >
>
> This is the one topic that always get me riled up. Windows may indeed
> require the paging file, but it's totally illogical. If our systems had
> unlimited amounts of RAM, we wouldn't even NEED a paging file. In
> *therory*, the paging file ONLY exists for paging real memory into virtual
> memory when real memory is otherwise exhausted. That's the ONLY reason
the
> concept even exists! Again, and this is key, if we had oodles and ooldes
of
> cheap RAM, why in the world would anyone have a paging file? Heck, how
can
> it be more efficient EVER to take something OUT of RAM and write to the
HD,
> one of the slowest components in the system? That's precisely why we tell
> ppl to ADD RAM when paging gets out of hand.
>
> If I have 500 gazillion bytes of RAM, I sure as heck want Windows to stuff
> everything it needs in memory into that RAM, not on some slow virtual
memory
> paging file!
>
> It's NEVER EVER EVER more efficient to take something out of RAM and stick
> it into a HD's file, EVER. The fact that MS does this is NOT because it's
> efficient, it's because MS has abused the concept of the virtual paging
> system for other purposes. In theory, you should be able to completely
rip
> out the virtual paging subsystem and continue using the OS normally. The
> only issue, if you did this, would be, of course, that once RAM was
> exhausted, you're DEAD. Virtually memory is merely a lifeboat because RAM
> is not inexhaustable, and until recently, could not be had in great
amounts
> at economical prices. But I say for third time, if we had endless amounts
> of RAM, noone would have invented the virtual paging system at all.
> EVERYTHING would be loaded into memory and left there, we're it's most
> efficiently stored and accessed.
>
> What has happened is that MS has so distorted the purpose and use of the
> paging file, that it has now built-in various dependencies, such as
> described here by the MVP. I've noticed myself that when I have tons of
RAM
> available, damn Windows insists on still using of the paging file. THIS
IS
> CRAZY! Windows should use RAM period. And if RAM is exhausted, THEN and
> ONLY then should the virtual memory subsystem page RAM in and out of the
> paging file. But as I said, it doesn't surprise me that MS has messed up
> Windows by using the virtual paging system for purposes it was never
> intended.
>
> Sorry folks, but this is one topic I see repeatedly talked about and
totally
> misunderstood by even the MVPs. If I have 4GB of RAM on my system,
there's
> no good reason, in theory, if the virtual memory subsystem is being used
> *properly* that I can't disable it. My only disadvantage should be that i
f
> I indeed exahust RAM, I'm dead. That's the risk I take, and should be the
> ONLY risk I face.
>
>
> > 2. There is no possible benefit to getting rid of the page file. If
> Windows
> > never needs to use it, then it won't (don't mix up allocation to it with
> use
> > of it). Having it there so it's available if you need it can only help
> you.
> > It never hurts you.
> >
>
> Ironically, it's because MS abuses the virtual memory subsystem that
having
> the virtual memory subsystem enabled actually *may* hurt you, at least in
> terms of performance. At least if I disable it, that FORCES Windows to
use
> RAM, not the stupid paging file. If you're telling me that when the
paging
> file is disabled, I won't be able to take advantage of these
> "preallocations", it's only because Windows is coded up to differenitate
> between a pagable and non-pagable system. IOW, when the page file is
> disabled, Windows doesn't preallocate, when paging is enabled, it does.
But
> that's just bad programming, Window should be allocating RAM as necessary
in
> real memory, ALL THE TIME. The virtual memory subsystem should be
managing
> the memory access, with the understanding that when real memory is nearing
> exhaustion, it's off to the paging file we go (if present), and should be
> completely transparent to Windows generally.
>
> That's why I say, Windows may indeed work the way you describe, but by
doing
> so, it's created a situation that makes it difficult for ppl to disable
the
> paging file, and for no good reason. If Windows actually only used the
> paging file when RAM was truly exhausted, I'd be in FULL AGREEMENT that
> there's no good reason not to have it enabled, just in case. But
> ironically, it's because Windows *does* abuse the paging file, in fact
uses
> it long before RAM is anywhere near exhaustion, that I'm actually MORE
> inclined to disable it, if only to stop Windows from doing this! At least
> it forces Windows to always use RAM.
>
> JMTC
>
> Jim
>
>
> > For more information, read this article by the late Alex Nichol, MVP:
> >
> > "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> > Please reply to the newsgroup
> >
> >
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows uses 4 GB? Really?
    ... I bought 4 GB of RAM because I thought it would speed up my system a bit. ... Some info that is posted here as reference seems to suggest that it is a Windows issue, but others seem to suggest that it is also a hardware issue. ... "I have install total 4GB memory on my motherboard. ... On a SLI system, since PCI-Ex graphic cards will occupy around 256MB, another 256MB will be occupied after you install a 2nd PCI-Ex graphic card. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Problem with M2N32 and 4x1GB RAM modules
    ... I put 2x1GB corsair DDR2 800 modules into it. ... The IDENTICAL RAM modules that I bought when i built it ... Every time i sped through the windows boot process and got to the ... Since the same 2 GB memory was really ...
    (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
  • Re: if i have many windows or programs running, I cannot open anym
    ... Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: ... much memory. ... If you don't have enough RAM, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Kernel_data_inpage-error
    ... It is a Windows system file. ... sticks of Ram and not tested the ram yet. ... You can check RAM memory. ... the System and Application logs in Event Viewer for the last boot. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Hardware Monitor found an error
    ... Windows update seems to be able to detect it ... If you do a lot of graphics work, yes, then more RAM may well benefit ... I don't know your tech, of course, but in my experience, most ... If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)