How big of a swap file with 4 GB of RAM?

J

jdh79

n00b
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
17
I have always (since Windows 2000) changed the swap file settings in Windows from system managed to setting the same value for the minimum and maximum size of the swap file to reduce disk fragmentation.

I am currently running Vista x64 and recently upgraded to 4 GB of RAM. I know that the standard recommendation is swap file should be 2.5 times system RAM. Does this still hold for very large RAM sizes, making me need a 10 GB swap file?
 
With 4 GIGs of physical Ram I always set my servers to 4096 min/max.
If this is a server that's going to get raped by SQL or another heavy hitter DB app, I'd double it.
For day to day file serving/etc, using more than 4Gigs of Swap is pretty unlikely.
 
just let windows worry about it, no matter what you set it your likely never going to notice what it is, or if it is being used anyways.


there are arguments that say the pagefile doesnt get fragmented and gets cleared anyways on reboot, and sicne it is a set size by windows or manually, it can not get defraged on your HD anyways like other files do.
 
Careful, being a proponent of forward thinking ideas about the pagefile around here can lead to massive flame wars. ;)
 
If you're hyper-concerned about it, set it to managed and make a custom log to monitor your swap file usage for a month. Save all the logs, run 'em through Excel to find the MAX, and create a primary NTFS partition about 1.3 times the high-water mark for your swap file. (When you format the NTFS partition, use 64K blocks.) Set the sole swap at a fixed sized at 1.25 times the highwater mark.

This is roughly adapted from the Thompson MCSE book on the topic.

I would imagine if you're asking here, though, you can probably just ignore it and you'll be fine.
 
With more memory, Windows will use the page file less and less (but it will always use it no matter what your memory amount is).
I think I'd try 1 or 2GB for page file with that amount of RAM. However you might need more depending on what you use the computer for.
 
jdh79 said:
I know that the standard recommendation is swap file should be 2.5 times system RAM.
Click to expand...
That actually hasn't been the case for quite some time. I'm thinking back when 128 or 256 MB of system memory was the norm. The true answer to this is....it depends. It depends on your usage.

If you are using Vista, or even XP64, I would just let Windows manage it. Setting a static size was a good idea, but the newer versions of Windows since XP do a much better job of memory management.
 
ChingChang said:
I think I'd try 1 or 2GB for page file with that amount of RAM. However you might need more depending on what you use the computer for.
Click to expand...

That's what i'd do. Although, if you've got the space, there isn't any harm in increasing it, is there?
 
Looking at my task manager right now with Vista running with Outlook, Firefox with about 8 tabs open, IE, Trillian and a few Windows Explorer windows running, it is using 1.8 GB of page file.

This is with 2 GB of memory installed (my other 2 GB doesn't come until tomorrow). It shows 1.15 GB of physical memory used. Screenshot is below. Why does it use so much page file usage without maxing out physical memory?

taskmgr.jpg
 
jdh79 said:
Looking at my task manager right now with Vista running with Outlook, Firefox with about 8 tabs open, IE, Trillian and a few Windows Explorer windows running, it is using 1.8 GB of page file.

This is with 2 GB of memory installed (my other 2 GB doesn't come until tomorrow). It shows 1.15 GB of physical memory used. Screenshot is below. Why does it use so much page file usage without maxing out physical memory?

http://users.eastlink.ca/~jdh/taskmgr.jpg[/IMG[/QUOTE]

Your memory is maxed out. Superfetch has loaded it up with other programs that aren't running that it thinks you might run in the future. If you open a program that has been loaded into memory by superfetch it will open much more quickly. If you open a program that is not loaded into memory, superfetch will dump what it has loaded into memory to free up space for that other program.
Click to expand...
 
Vista is smarter about this sort of thing. You can just leave it to system managed size.
 
I understand that SuperFetch does that for caching physical memory. However, does SuperFetch also cache into the page file? And if so, isn't that adding pointless I/O cycles, because whether you load a program cached into virtual memory on the HD or whether you load it from the HD, isn't it the same overall speed?
 
Surely, if a lot of that stuff is being loaded into the pagefile instead of the physical memory, doesn't it show that Vista is doing a bad job at managing the memory? It should have emptied the superfetched stuff out of the RAM, like ChingChang said, so the programs and applications, the things which should be prioritised, load into the physical memory and not the pagefile.
 
Yeah, I don't see any purpose of loading cached programs into the page file, because if it's loading off the page file, it should be same speed as loading off the hard drive uncached. Does anyone have an explanation for that?
 
jdh79 said:
Yeah, I don't see any purpose of loading cached programs into the page file, because if it's loading off the page file, it should be same speed as loading off the hard drive uncached. Does anyone have an explanation for that?
Click to expand...

I think loading from the pagefile would be slightly faster if it was positioned somewhere on the outer platters of the drive but, even then, differences in seek times and tranfer rates are likely to be negligable.
 
jdh79 said:
Looking at my task manager right now with Vista running with Outlook, Firefox with about 8 tabs open, IE, Trillian and a few Windows Explorer windows running, it is using 1.8 GB of page file.

This is with 2 GB of memory installed (my other 2 GB doesn't come until tomorrow). It shows 1.15 GB of physical memory used. Screenshot is below. Why does it use so much page file usage without maxing out physical memory?

taskmgr.jpg
Click to expand...



WOW!! wtf


Vista Buisness here, 1g of ram on a macbook core 2 duo 2ghz

outlook 2007 / IE with 9 tabs open, Media player playing music, PowerISO burning a DVDr @ 4x, flashFXP doing a download, Trillian and MSN running, AVP AntiV, spybot teatimer, i did turn off Aero and i am using 606MB of physical memory used and have 909MB of 2232MB in PageFile....
 
I'm going to jump in here too, because I just ordered a second kit of G.Skill DDR500, making my grand total 4GB (see Play rig in sig). Therefore I am curious about this issue. Currently I have Windows XP Professional SP2, but I plan to move onto 64-bit Vista eventually...
 
Noticed that you have a lot of start up programs (67 of them) MrGuvernment. Close as many as you can, and see what the difference is. I have 42 running for Vista 64 bit right now, which is about the norm, and memory in the Task Manager is about 873Mb being used. Page file is 873M / 8,342M ( Changes each second) set by Windows, and Physical Memory: 21/22 %



VelocityMicro Gamers Edge

680i SLI
Bios P-25
E6600 2.4 ghz @ 3.6 ghz max ( Unstable )
4 Gigs Corsair Dominator DDR2-8500 C5D 4-4-4-12 2T
8800 GTX
Arctic Cooler Pro 7
WD 250 Hrd Drv 16 mb cache
Vista Premium 64 bit
 
Sovereign, with XP SP2 and 2 video cards, chances are you will only be able to use 3 GB or less of your RAM unless you move to a 64 bit OS. With how cheap DDR2 is these days, it's probably worth it anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top