![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Disabling pagefile with 1 gb of ram?
- Thread starter DaLurker
- Start date
superlyduper
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 659
i disabled wit 1gb.
Oh, the horror of the "out of VM" error...XOR != OR said:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=860421
Recommended threads:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=820472 <---I don't really discuss the no-PF option, but read between the lines.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=784988
I'd argue if you have the memory, there are 0 downsides. If you don't you will get the error in the first link, which is *easily* correctable, as djnes did. Just create a PF, voilla.
Direwolf20
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
I hear it does make things faster, but I'm personally keeping the PF because I play it safe.
Same reason I haven't gotten into the overclocking bizz.
Same reason I haven't gotten into the overclocking bizz
.Disabling the pagefile is stupid and will not result in faster performance. The pagefile is not the only file involved with paging. Read my reply in the sticky that should not even be sticky since it incorrectly defines Virtual Memory and gives stupid advice.
When you get rid of the paging fileall you are doing is forcing all paging to be done to pages containing code and mapped files. This cripples the file cache and slows down code execution, among other things.
The NT family was deisgned with the expectation that the pagefile would be there. So it is best kept there. Because of this even if you do disabloe the pagefile it will create a 20 MB paging file for you and just not tell you about it! So there is no benefit to disabling the pagefile. The best thing to do is leave it system managed. Windows does a great job at managing it.
NT will always use the pagefile and this is why it creates a 20MB pagefile if you disable it.
Don't listen to these misinformed people who say to disable the paging file.
When you get rid of the paging fileall you are doing is forcing all paging to be done to pages containing code and mapped files. This cripples the file cache and slows down code execution, among other things.
The NT family was deisgned with the expectation that the pagefile would be there. So it is best kept there. Because of this even if you do disabloe the pagefile it will create a 20 MB paging file for you and just not tell you about it! So there is no benefit to disabling the pagefile. The best thing to do is leave it system managed. Windows does a great job at managing it.
NT will always use the pagefile and this is why it creates a 20MB pagefile if you disable it.
Don't listen to these misinformed people who say to disable the paging file.
Direwolf20
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
KoolDrew said:
Those "misinformed" and "stupid" people have answered more questions without flaming than I can remember, and have already made a name for themselves on this message board (at least in my opinion) as a bunch of guys who know their stuff. Who are you? Your name isn't familiar to me. Phoenix's is, because he's a bright guy.
How about answering a question without flaming some of the more popular and intelligent people on this message board, and I just might give your post some thought.
I didn't see your replies in that thread, answered. Please respond.KoolDrew said:
Caching of what to where? When you disable the PF all your doing is telling the system *where* things can be cached. System cache still runs, it just does it in RAM, not the HDD. You don't really think storing "cache" on the slowest access device in your system is going to speed things up do you?
XP allows for no PF, not even the 20MB PF W2k and NT will create.
Most people aren't running NT, they are running 2k and XP. XP does not require a PF at all.
Don't flame, it's not necessary to make an intelligent point.
I used to be one who always disabled the pagefile. It didn't add performance in terms of gaming or anything like that, but it gave the system a little snappier feel opening certain apps. Now, I went back to using a pagefile, as referenced in my other thread:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=860421
Oh, and KoolDrew...challenging Phoenix86 on an issue he's written many stickies about is probably not a good idea. His info is tried and true, and pretty much accepted as fact. If you disagree with something he said, have a conversation with him....don't openly flame a widely respected user.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=860421
Oh, and KoolDrew...challenging Phoenix86 on an issue he's written many stickies about is probably not a good idea. His info is tried and true, and pretty much accepted as fact. If you disagree with something he said, have a conversation with him....don't openly flame a widely respected user.
From posts I have read of his on other boards he knows a bit so I'll give some slack and see what he has to say. That is, when he replies with some substance....Direwolf20 said:
The flamming isn't necessary, and post count means nothing...
Direwolf20
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
Phoenix86 said:The flamming isn't necessary, and post count means nothing...
Yea I know, I just get aggitated when people show up here and are really rude about responses. One of the things I like most about this board is that people discuss things in an intelligent manner. For him to show up and attack a veteran calling him "stupid" and "uninformed"...well its aggrivating
. Its one thing to have a different opinion and supporting evidence, but another thing to just flame.Direwolf20 said:Yea I know, I just get aggitated when people show up here and are really rude about responses. One of the things I like most about this board is that people discuss things in an intelligent manner. For him to show up and attack a veteran calling him "stupid" and "uninformed"...well its aggrivating
You obviously don't post in the car forums. Go in there to any thread where someone is asking what car to buy...and merely mention a reference to safety ratings.....you get flamed for mentioning that car safety is worth looking into and considering. Too many children in there with no family and no sense of maturity or responsibility.
In the computer areas, your absolutely right. Most of the time I get into an argument with someone, I end up talking to them offline and becoming friendly with them.
If someone has new points were not considering, bring it on. However, the thread that's stickied does not cover disabling the PF for a reason. I didn't feel it was acceptable enough to mix in with what the thread is for, sizing the PF when you have one. Yes some of the info is relevant to the no-PF setting, but that's different.djnes said:I thought we had done enough challenging, flaming, apologizing, etc in all the other pagefile threads. I guess there's always room for some more.
Your thread was stickied for being good sound advice.
Direwolf20
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
Phoenix86 said:
Just say you should size the PF to 0
Sorry for flaming. My answer to the initial post is do NOT disable it and I think I posted enough reasons why. There is no benefit to it at all.
Done and all of your questions should be answered in there. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.
All are part of the NT family.
That is the attitude I like. I hate people who seem to think they know everything and do not want to listen to others when they could learn something.
Actually, that's implied (which is why people comment on it in that thread), just not covered.Direwolf20 said:Just say you should size the PF to 0
It really is a seperate topic since there are other concerns.
Heh, it's a PF kind of day...
Direwolf20
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,467
Appology accepted . Criticize away, just don't call people stupid or uninformed
. Criticize away, just don't call people stupid or uninformed Accepted.KoolDrew said:
That's debatable, see the other thread I linked to (3rd link). It's a ~6 page thread and I don't think the consensus is we couldn't test (easily) the aspects of the PF. Do you know a way to measure it? (the therad talks about the issue with measuring it). Also see the first link I provided. It's anecdotal evidence, but shouldn't be ignored.
Thanks, get to those in a bit.
...and? By that logic, XP doesn't have directX, there are plenty of differences. W2k was a total re-write form NT4. You can see where I'm going with this.
Something you'd know if you hang around here more, or cared to ask before flamming.
The more I learn, the less I realize I know about the product. No one person know everything about the OS. Heck I'd doubt any single person knows 90% of the OS.
Yes, and the page file differs from NT4-W2k-XP. 9x is irrelevant. All that you need to know is each NTx kernels handle the PF different. NT requires 20MB, W2k 2(maybe it's 20 too, would have to check), and XP none.KoolDrew said:
**The rest of this posts is quoted from KoolDrew's post in my "how to size the PF" which related to disabling the PF.**
I think your confusing some things. XP runs just fine without a PF, test it yourself. In fact, have you ever run sans PF?
If what your saying is true the OS wouldn't run at all, or it would be total crap because your neutering the memory management. What happens is all of VMM & paging still goes on (backing store, execuatables, shared libraries) it just happens in RAM or mapped memory to disk (why page a file to disk, that's already *on* the disk). Removing the PF does simply take away the HDD as an options of *where* to store the data, not *how* it stores it. This is the #1 problem with VMM and PF and paging, people confuse their operations. Just because we remove the page file, doesn't mean we disable paging or VMM.
If your saying XP does this please provide a link. Otherwise I think all our PF discussions have been on XP, so let's not mix up the discussion.
(in reply to why disabling the PF doesn't show advantages in 3dmark)
The problem is, even with enough RAM, systems still show paging (heavy I/O on the HDD) when the used memory is less than physical RAM. What I think the OS is doing is trying to free up as much RAM as possible, so it spins stuff to the PF. If you *do* have enough RAM, that isn't necessary. But, XP doesn't know how much RAM your going to use. That depends on the applications/data your loading. We, however, can measure, and know the limits of what we're running. This is where there is room for gain. If I can prevent the OS from spinning data to the PF by because I know it's not needed, that's a performance gain. Measuring that can proove difficult. Can you make you system page on command? I can't. Does the system page while running 3D mark? If it doesn't of course your not going to notice a benefit. However, I have been gaming, seen the system spin to the PF (while loading apps/levels in a game for ex.), when I look at my peak useage, it doesn't go over my physical RAM, so why is it spinning data to the disk? It shouldn't, but it does.
If you measure the memory requirements, though, you know the free space in RAM is not needed.
Read the links I posted, much of this has been discussed before.
If you use Adobe Photoshop you need a pagefile. In fact if you graphic work at I would recommend (and I could be wrong, I am by no means an expert) leaving it on.
But that's my two cents.
You should try it with it off. If it doesn't work out for you at least you know.
But that's my two cents.
You should try it with it off. If it doesn't work out for you at least you know.
IIRC, you can still run photoshop w/o a page file (it gives an error, but there is a way around it), but you will like need it anyways. Uncompressed photos can get massive, and you'll need the memory from somewhere.
I wouldn't recommend disabling the PF on DBs or photo/video editing machines in general.
I wouldn't recommend disabling the PF on DBs or photo/video editing machines in general.
I think most people would agree that the slight performance gain is not worth the trouble you can run into. If you run HL2 or Photoshop, not a good idea. If you use Word, Web, and email, you can do it. But then again, if that is all you're doing, the performance boost will be nearly unnoticeable.
Very good point. This isn't a "general" tweak. It'll only really affect perfornace in certian cases.JasonLee said:
The #1 reason I do it is for gaming. I don't want to page to disk when I'm running a first person shooter, for example. That has ended more than one of my killing sprees. Well, that and to learn/help people learn about the it's operation. Most people think the PF is the whole VMM subsystem.
Is that why XP in many situations will create a small (~20M) pagefile on the system drive? XP does this as it knows it is necessary in some cases and having one is safer.
The PC would boot fine without a pagefile, but anything that makes use of anonymous memory mappings, keeps lots of data in memory, etc has a chance to fail because there is no other backing store available. For that reason it's really difficult to disable the pagefile, usually if you try it'll creage a small one (~20M) in the windows directory without telling you.
I think the books I mentioned to you cover this, but I am not sure.
This is completely incorrect. Windows will only put data into the pagefile when necessary or if the data hasn't been touched in so long that it feels the memory could be better used by system cache.
Many people also think there pagefile is being used too much when they have plenty of RAM and many people go by the PF Usage counter in taskmgr. This is generally high because it counts reservations as well as used pagefile slots.
Also as I lready told you the pagefile is NOT the only file involved with paging. The definition of paging is the reading and writing of page sized chunks of data to and from other media. So of course the paging file is not the only file involved with paging.
Any RAM that is free is in fact wasted RAM and this is why Windows will always try to find a use for all of your ram
..and most of it is false info.
Photoshop will most likley start, but after making many edits to an image it needs a backing store and this has to be the pagefile.
You are correct here, but I would not reccomend disabling PF anytime. Regrardless of your usage patterns.
There will be no performance increase as the pagefile is not the only file involved with paging.
Think about it like this. If the pagefile is disabled RAM will most likley be filled with useless application data. With a pagefile this can be paged out of physical memory and more RAM can be used for the filecache which might speed up some operations.
So you would rather have RAM be filled with useless code for previous open applications rather then it being used for much more benefitial things?