Is it ever a good idea to disable paging file (Vista, SSD, 4Gb+ RAM...)

D

Dew itt right

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
3,314
I've done a bit of Googling and forum reading but I can't seem to get a clear answer on this. I first wanted to disable it to minimize the read/writes to the SSD I just put in a friends laptop. He's got 4Gb DDR2-800 RAM installed and a 128Gb G.Skill Falcon with Vista Ultimate x64 installed. The most multitasking he ever does is having Outlook and a browser open at the same time. he plays a game once in a while but that's the extent of his heavy use. It's my uneducated assumption that he's never going to NEED a paging file because there's always plenty of room in his physical memory. Is this incorrect? It sounds like disabling the paging file would lengthen the lifespan of his SSD a little bit and even speed it up some but I want to get a good answer for [H] on this. Most of the forum's and articles are just people bickering over whether it's a critical component of the OS or discussing on what other drive or flash device to store the paging file. I have nothing else attached to the laptop to shift it to so we're looking to disable it completely. Thanks...
 
Dew itt right said:
I've done a bit of Googling and forum reading but I can't seem to get a clear answer on this. I first wanted to disable it to minimize the read/writes to the SSD I just put in a friends laptop. He's got 4Gb DDR2-800 RAM installed and a 128Gb G.Skill Falcon with Vista Ultimate x64 installed. The most multitasking he ever does is having Outlook and a browser open at the same time. he plays a game once in a while but that's the extent of his heavy use. It's my uneducated assumption that he's never going to NEED a paging file because there's always plenty of room in his physical memory. Is this incorrect? It sounds like disabling the paging file would lengthen the lifespan of his SSD a little bit and even speed it up some but I want to get a good answer for [H] on this. Most of the forum's and articles are just people bickering over whether it's a critical component of the OS or discussing on what other drive or flash device to store the paging file. I have nothing else attached to the laptop to shift it to so we're looking to disable it completely. Thanks...
Click to expand...

This question comes up like every other day. No, do not disable the page file. It is an important part of how memory management works in modern operating systems. Even if you have plenty of ram, you still need a page file. Some programs need it to work because they expect it to be there. If you are dead set on messing with it, you could set it to a small static size (like 512mb or 1GB or something) instead of the huge sizes that windows likes to pick by default. But don't disable it. There's no point, all it does is make the OS work harder. If there's not much being written to it, as you say, then it won't hurt the SSD anyway.

Now queue the people going "I'VE RUN WITHOUT THE PAGE FILE SINCE WIN2K AND I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM" and the ensuing flame war over this topic. Go.
 
Eva_Unit_0 said:
This question comes up like every other day. No, do not disable the page file. It is an important part of how memory management works in modern operating systems. Even if you have plenty of ram, you still need a page file. Some programs need it to work because they expect it to be there. If you are dead set on messing with it, you could set it to a small static size (like 512mb or 1GB or something) instead of the huge sizes that windows likes to pick by default. But don't disable it. There's no point, all it does is make the OS work harder. If there's not much being written to it, as you say, then it won't hurt the SSD anyway.

Now queue the people going "I'VE RUN WITHOUT THE PAGE FILE SINCE WIN2K AND I'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM" and the ensuing flame war over this topic. Go.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. Make it small but don't eliminate it. I'm doing 32MB (megs) with systems these days (8-12gb of ram).
 
I looked at how much windows actually liked to page out, and set the page file to roughly that size + 128 megs. I have a 768 mb page file with 6GB ram.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Current SSD's can theoretically handle quite a bit of writing and still last for years.

I would make the pagefile smaller and use a static size, but don't disable it completely.
 
Dew itt right said:
:confused:
Click to expand...

If you want to disable it then go right ahead, nothing is stopping you. I just remember several games back in the day that literally would not run without an active page file. And without the page file, if you do manage to use up all the ram, then the computer will likely crash.

The point we're trying to make is that there are no downsides to setting a small static page file. It won't wear out the drive because 1. ssds have seen big improvements in their life expectancies and 2. it will very rarely be used anyway. It won't take up a lot of space because you can set it to a small size. Why not just set a small page file and be done with it? But it's your laptop. It's not going to catch on fire and explode if you disable the page file. Nor will demons come and steal your soul.
 
Sorry Eva, didn't mean to get you all rowled up. I do plan on setting it to a small amount, maybe 750Mb? I'll follow MS's procedure to see how much it really needs. I was just curious as to why MS itself would say that it could be disabled. just found it funny, that's all. Thanks for the help guys...
 
If you fill your physical ram, windows will automatically create and enlarge a paging file as much as needed, even if it is disabled. The file will be removed at next boot. As for programs requiring a paging file, the devs are morons. Leave the memory management to the OS or make your own scratch file (as per photoshop), a properly coded program shouldn't be making some kind of direct call to the paging file.

And why yes, I do have my paging file disabled. If you ever run into an issue, all you have to do is make a paging file. Disable it, and run it that way for awhile. Windows will still make pages if it needs to, it just won't keep a file blob on your drive.
 
Dew itt right said:
Sorry Eva, didn't mean to get you all rowled up. I do plan on setting it to a small amount, maybe 750Mb? I'll follow MS's procedure to see how much it really needs. I was just curious as to why MS itself would say that it could be disabled. just found it funny, that's all. Thanks for the help guys...
Click to expand...

lol no I wasn't riled up, I apologize if I came across that way. I was just trying to say that it ultimately won't make a huge difference either way, but that I didn't see any real point in disabling it outright. :cool:
 
If you have an SSD, like I do, the benefits of disabling the page file outweigh any potential issues. I have 12 GB of RAM, so the page file takes up 12 GB out of 74 GB or so, of my precious SSD disk space. That is simply not acceptable, and with 12 GB of RAM, the chances of you running low on virtual memory is nil.

Actually, Windows 7 has an EXPLICIT option to allow you to disable the page file, whereas previous versions of Windows did not (you could set it very low, if you wanted to). This makes me think that Windows is working towards a more customizable virtual memory system.
 
I've never had any type of crash issues from not using a page file, however photoshop complains and DOW II doesn't load up if you have less a page file less than 1.5GB in size. :(
 
Cyrilix said:
Actually, Windows 7 has an EXPLICIT option to allow you to disable the page file, whereas previous versions of Windows did not (you could set it very low, if you wanted to). This makes me think that Windows is working towards a more customizable virtual memory system.
Click to expand...
XP lets you have no paging file (and obviously Vista too).
 
Ryom said:
If you fill your physical ram, windows will automatically create and enlarge a paging file as much as needed, even if it is disabled. The file will be removed at next boot. As for programs requiring a paging file, the devs are morons. Leave the memory management to the OS or make your own scratch file (as per photoshop), a properly coded program shouldn't be making some kind of direct call to the paging file.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. They are also morons when they do a windows version check (then you run into SP3 failing when obviously the game would still work). That doesn't keep people from wanting to play those games though.
 
Another question: A a few of the answers above imply that minimizing the size of the paging file has some benefit. How can this be any better than having no page file at all?
 
JJ Johnson said:
Another question: A a few of the answers above imply that minimizing the size of the paging file has some benefit. How can this be any better than having no page file at all?
Click to expand...

He's using a SSD. Drive space is very, very valuable. Normally it can expand quite a bit and takes up a ton of space. Setting the size minimizes compatibility issues and keeps it small.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
He's using a SSD. Drive space is very, very valuable. Normally it can expand quite a bit and takes up a ton of space. Setting the size minimizes compatibility issues and keeps it small.
Click to expand...

Right, but when Windows paging "wants" to use gigabytes of space, how is having a 32MB page file any more beneficial than having none at all?
 
JJ Johnson said:
Right, but when Windows paging "wants" to use gigabytes of space, how is having a 32MB page file any more beneficial than having none at all?
Click to expand...

Well, it "wants" to use a ton of space if you have a ton of RAM. By following the instructions in the Microsoft article faugusztin linked to earlier he can assign a reasonably sized static pagefile rather than 1.5x RAM or whatever the default is.
 
JJ Johnson said:
Right, but when Windows paging "wants" to use gigabytes of space, how is having a 32MB page file any more beneficial than having none at all?
Click to expand...

The idea is that it minimizes how much hard disk space is used on the page file, while still technically providing one for programs that need it. Of course this advice is only valid if you have a system that pretty much never needs any significant swap space. If you have a system that is readily filing gigs upon gigs of swap space, then why would you be trying to disable it anyway?
 
Mark Russinovich's Pushing the Limits of Windows: Virtual Memory
To optimally size your paging file you should start all the applications you run at the same time, load typical data sets, and then note the commit charge peak (or look at this value after a period of time where you know maximum load was attained). Set the paging file minimum to be that value minus the amount of RAM in your system (if the value is negative, pick a minimum size to permit the kind of crash dump you are configured for). If you want to have some breathing room for potentially large commit demands, set the maximum to double that number.
Click to expand...

Basically if you have enough RAM, you shouldn't really need a pagefile. However, that's where crash dumps go, and it can be nice to have in case of a huge memory load or a stupid program that demands it.
 
I think it depends on which OS you are using. Linux has generally taken the tact of fully utilizing memory before relying on swap. Windows, up through XP used the strategy of keeping RAM free, by preemptively paging memory out to the page file. I believe that this was changed under Vista, and optimized under Win7. (To be more like Linux, use physical memory until you need the room.) See slide 11 here: http://www.authorstream.com/Present...ows-xpvista-memory-management-ppt-powerpoint/

I have paging turned off on my Win XP system wtih 2gig of RAM. The only time I have had memory problems is when doing heavy photoshop. I typically do moderate to heavy multitasking and no gaming.

With new memory management techniques in Vista and Win7, and the prevalence of high RAM systems, I think having paging enabled is probably unnecessary. The flip side of that however, is that if the new versions of Windows have optimized memory management, you shouldn't need to worry about Windows preferring the paging file over keeping data in RAM.

I could see how someone with an SSD would be sensitive to having unnecessary writes, if they could avoid it.
 
Last edited:
Windows still caches a lot of stuff to the page file regardless of how much memory you have, stuff that's probably rarely called upon but always loaded, maybe to make space for stuff you actually load often thru SuperFetch, I wouldn't know... But according to MS devs the page file actually benefits a lot from running on SSDs anyway, see here:

" Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well.
In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that

In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. "

Personally I'm not sure I'd keep it on the SSD either way (on a desktop where I also have 2dary HDs), but I wouldn't disable it regardless... Then again I haven't dealt w/a SSD on a laptop yet. I'd definitely make it a static size though, at 'least, set the same size under max and min so Windows isn't constantly re-sizing it and creating new chunks of it left and right on the disk.

What I'm more confused about is SuperFetch and the comments made about it on that same FAQ, apparently Windows7 disables it when installed on SSDs but AFAIK RAM is still much faster, and all SuperFetch does is write stuff to RAM so it reads it from there rather than SSD... Why disable it at all? I don't get it.
 
I wouldn't worry about the write limitations at all. But throwing away 4-8GB of an 80GB (on the only drive in the system) just seems screwy to me. Yes, Ive run sans page file for more than a year, with 4 and now 8GB of RAM.
 
The most relevant comment so far has been Dew It Right's find, in which MS says that if you have lots of RAM, then a paging file "might not be required."

Why isn't anyone digging into this REAL information instead of blurting out all of this don't-do-it FUD?

I have been running without a paging file since XP came out. I'm currently at 12GB (on x64) and I cap my usage around 10GB. Someone mentioned before that Photoshop needs the OS paging file. That's false, and it has it's own file. Furthermore, the RAM you configure Photoshop to use is not preallocated. I have NEVER had an app refuse to run for the lack of an OS paging file.

So what's the REAL skinny behind this? Why does MS say the paging file may not be required when there's lots of RAM? Is that to cover itself in case you blue screen on out-of-memory? MS wouldn't offer that it "might not be required" if the trail led to a bad place. But, what is that place??

I've tried searching and can't find anything concrete about performance benefits. I'm not going to offer any touchy-feely-I-recall-or-I-am-so-sure garbage about how GOOD running without a paging file is, but I'll offer these CONCRETE benefits:

1) The paging file takes up space at the high-performance edge of the disk. If absent, then your system files will be in that space instead.

Obviously
this only matters
for spinning platters

2) If a paging file exists, it WILL use your IO subsystem. People try to solve this by creating another partition or, in the extreme, dedicating mass storage to the paging file. Though the latter is the better performing between the two (this is a known), especially if you've got a separate controller (or SCSI system), both options required you have MORE MOVING PARTS in your system. More to configure, more to manage, more ingrown technical calisthenics.

3) If you have "expensive" controllers, expensive drives, SSDs, then I can say with 8 years of experience that you do NOT *need* to dedicate these expensive resources to the paging file. To ensure I would never blue-screen on out-of-memory, I have always installed more RAM than I would possibly use.


So, does anyone know what is beyond the MS, "might not be required." ???
 
Last edited:
Shitty programs hardcoded to look for or use the swap directly that bitch if you don't have it. Otherwise, you are good without it.
 
1) Is it simply that we are "safe" to not have it, or can someone establish whether there is a quantifiable performance benefit?

2) I'm curious, what skankware programs actually depend on the OS paging file? Someone else here correctly criticized the programmers who aren't leaving the OS memory management to itself. The only excuse I can think of would be way-old ports of DOS or I guess early Windows apps.
 
What? You know, this thread is supposed to be about the WHY of the page file, not the HOW. Of COURSE you can point it to another m e c h a n i c a l drive!! You can probably point it at ANYTHING that is a block device - mechanical, electrical, virtual, WHATEVER. And, really, WHATEVER! Who cares! There are 1 billion web pages about that - it is a known quantity.

The unanswered question, as per the original post: Is there any true danger (given that there's RAM above-and-beyond what would be necessary) and/or performance gain in NOT having a paging file.

I outlined some general system benefits in not having one, being a simpler system that uses its resources more "appropriately," but what about whether there is an actual bona-fide performance benefit? Or, a true danger? Aviodable? Perhaps instead of "just don't do it" there is a list of bad neighbor apps that exists somewhere, so we can avoid them if there is a performance benefit to be had?
 
kustardking said:
What? You know, this thread is supposed to be about the WHY of the page file, not the HOW. Of COURSE you can point it to another m e c h a n i c a l drive!! You can probably point it at ANYTHING that is a block device - mechanical, electrical, virtual, WHATEVER. And, really, WHATEVER! Who cares! There are 1 billion web pages about that - it is a known quantity.

The unanswered question, as per the original post: Is there any true danger (given that there's RAM above-and-beyond what would be necessary) and/or performance gain in NOT having a paging file.

I outlined some general system benefits in not having one, being a simpler system that uses its resources more "appropriately," but what about whether there is an actual bona-fide performance benefit? Or, a true danger? Aviodable? Perhaps instead of "just don't do it" there is a list of bad neighbor apps that exists somewhere, so we can avoid them if there is a performance benefit to be had?
Click to expand...

whoa there buddy didn't mean to offend you :rolleyes: I meant to say that if it's such a huge issue in the case of SSD drives, why not move it off to a mechanical HDD. This way you could avoid taking up space on a SSD but still have whatever benefits having a pagefile gives you.
 
You're asking a secondary question as though there is already an answer to the original question. The original question is whether or not a paging file is necessary *at all* when given enough RAM.

So, it **does not matter** if it's SSD, mechanical HD, a floppy RAID, smoke signals, because we haven't even established whether or not you need a paging file in the first place.

1) What benefits exist in running without a paging file
2) If none, or if detrimental, then NEW THREAD with how-to optimize paging file
 
kustardking said:
You're asking a secondary question as though there is already an answer to the original question. The original question is whether or not a paging file is necessary *at all* when given enough RAM.

So, it **does not matter** if it's SSD, mechanical HD, a floppy RAID, smoke signals, because we haven't even established whether or not you need a paging file in the first place.

1) What benefits exist in running without a paging file
2) If none, or if detrimental, then NEW THREAD with how-to optimize paging file
Click to expand...

What are you, the forum police? :rolleyes: I think my question is relevant. If we still haven't decided on whether a pagefile is necessary, then I'd like to know an interim solution until we figure it out. No need to spam the forum with threads on related topics. :rolleyes:
 
I'm concerned with the original question, and so I'm adding info related to it. You added a question that represents a different channel of thought. That is, a how-to in the event the original question is answered as "yes, you do need a paging file."

Anyway, someone already suggested putting the paging file on another drive.

And, right, as you said, "No need to spam the forum with threads on related topics," so let's keep to the topic of whether or not a paging file is truly necessary before we figure how to do it "right."
 
OK - my bad - I have been replying to the wrong topic! Yes, your comment is relevant and on-topic, and of course that makes mine (mostly) off topic.
 
The main issue with disabling a page file as others have said that I have, is that certain things REQUIRE a pagefile, which is annoying as hell. The question then becomes, does it actually hurt performance in a real world situation to keep the pagefile off of the main OS drive and on a separate mechanical drive in the case that your main OS drive is an SSD.
 
I'm still curious. Is there a list, or a particularly important set of apps, that require it? I haven't run into one.
 
kustardking said:
I'm still curious. Is there a list, or a particularly important set of apps, that require it? I haven't run into one.
Click to expand...

Certain games such as DoW 2 require it. Applications I personally haven't run into any issues but some games don't like it.
 
I have 2 60G Vertex in Raid 0 system drive.

Also I have 8G DDR2 RAM on my P5Q...

I just set my page file size to 2048MB static size and leave it...

I have yet encounter any problem and the performance is better with it on too...


ComputerManiac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top