Re: Do I need a Page File?
- From: "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:33:34 -0500
We're not all as smart as you David, and most of us are certainly not as
coarse!
Isn't it true that virtual memory will still be used whether, or not, a
pagefile exists? Is it not independent of the pagefile?
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
news:%23qTcxRc8FHA.3504@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's a stupid comment. Intel designes the virtual memory.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read David defending the concept of violence.
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/10/entering_the_ga.html#more
=================================================
"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23e18qVU8FHA.3416@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "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
>> if
>> 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
>
> **************************
>
> Except that Windows XP was designed for certain "minimum" specifications,
> and at the time 256 meg of RAM was, more or less, the standard. Under
> these
> circumstances the pageing file is very necessary. But I agree that
> Microsoft should have looked into the future a bit and included some sort
> of
> override capability.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Do I need a Page File?
- From: boe
- Re: Do I need a Page File?
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Do I need a Page File?
- From: Jim
- Re: Do I need a Page File?
- From: Richard Urban
- Do I need a Page File?
- Prev by Date: Re: Winlogon.exe chewing up CPU
- Next by Date: Resizing Partitions
- Previous by thread: Re: Do I need a Page File?
- Next by thread: Re: Do I need a Page File?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
