Re: Paging File
- From: "Gerry Cornell" <gcjc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:36:37 -0000
Gary
Might this Knowledge Base Article apply?
"Your System Has No Paging File, or the Paging File Is Too Small" Error
Message After Windows XP Upgrade
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316528
Is your hard drive partitioned?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"gary" <gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F27B2167-AEA9-45A5-ADCE-16FBE7E5A455@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ken:
I downloaded the "WinXP Page File Usage Monitor" that you suggested and
after signing off the internet and dis-abling my Norton Anti-Virus, I ran
the
monitor and received the following results:
Current PF Usage: 90mb
Session Peak Usage: 93mb
Current PageFile Size: 254mb
I then signed onto the internet and enabled my Norton Anti-Virus, and
received the following results:
Current PF Usage: 116mb
Session Peak Usage: 136mb
Current PageFile Size: 254mb
Note: I still received the Error Message "Your system has no paging file,
or the paging file is too small" after boot up.
Any ideas??? Thanks much for your time.
Gary
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
gary wrote:
Are you familiar with the Windows Task Manager? I opened the Task
Manager up and under the "PF Usage" it read 273mb. Does "PF Usage"
mean my Page File Usage?? I then shut down all windows, disabled my
Norton, and disconnected from the internet, and my "PF Usage" read
221mb.
If this is my Page File usage, should my 256mb of RAM be used up
already???
That's a very confusing and misleading figure. It's actually reporting
what's been allocated in the page file, noy what's actually in use. They
are
two very different things, because WIndows pre-allocates space in
advance,
so that it will be available if it's needed. that improves performance if
it
turns out to be needed. For an accurate measure of what's really in use,
try
the utility I cited below.
For more info on this, particularly with regard to the Task Manager
report,
read this article by the late MVP, Alex Nichol: "Virtual Memory in
Windows
XP" at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
Jerry wrote:
Did you consider increasing the RAM? 256Mb is barely enough for XP -
1Mb is better.
I assume you mean 1GB, not 1MB.
1GB might be better for some people, but not everyone. It is more
than most people can make effective use of. How much RAM you need
for good peformance is *not* a one-size-fits-all situation. You get
good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you from using
the page file, and that depends on what apps you run. Most people
running a typical range of business applications find that somewhere
around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB. Almost anyone will
see poor performance with less than 256MB. Some people, particularly
those doing things like editing large photographic images, can see a
performance boost by adding even more than 512MB--sometimes much
more.
If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will
do nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes%5Fpublic/winxp%5Ftweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your pagefile usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
.
- References:
- Re: Paging File
- From: Jerry
- Re: Paging File
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Paging File
- From: Ken Blake, MVP
- Re: Paging File
- From: gary
- Re: Paging File
- Prev by Date: Re: Paging File
- Next by Date: Re: Internet Explorer 7/XP Professional
- Previous by thread: Re: Paging File
- Next by thread: Re: Virtual Memory Size
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
