Moving the paging file to its own partition?

E

El Kabong

n00b
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
29
Huh... i just ran into this... I never knew you could have it so you could devote an entire disk partition just to RAM usage just by movin something over...

Does this really increase efficiency of RAM usage as much as i think it does...? For something that seems like such a big boon to performance i wonder why i didnt run into it sooner...
 
For starters IF swap is EVER hit it hard it is always a drop in performance (size yr RAM w.r.t. this)

HOWEVER... yes having the swap file/partition on another partition w.r.t. system *can* provide a performance boost only if two things are met

1) you are actually hitting swap
2) on a different drive to system or where your read alot of data from
 
Since Windows pages all the time regardless of whatever the user supposedly does or what settings they change, the second choice there that eeyrjmr mentioned, and there's a "sticky" of sorts around here someplace that covers most of the pagefile/virtual memory issues pretty thoroughly.

First rule of thumb: the pagefile is not the virtual memory subsystem in Windows, or in any other OS either (often called swap file on other OSes, but Windows peeps still call it the page file, predominantly). The pagefile/swap is just a small part, a single component of the virtual memory subsystem of Windows and other modern OSes. Because the x86 architecture was designed to work with virtual mode/real-mode processing, every OS works with a virtual memory subsytem regardless of who-what-when-where.

So, in the long run the second option mentioned above is the only real alternative to improving performance aside from giving the system more physical chip RAM - that's not always an option for people, or perhaps your system simply can't support more than you already have. Some people are in that situation with older hardware from several years ago, with systems that might max out at 1GB of RAM regardless of the number of slots, or 1.5 sometimes with 3 slot mobos that can't work with anything larger than 512MB sticks.

As for creating a partition just for the pagefile/swapfile, once again that's only going to increase performance in one very specific situation:

You have a second physical hard drive that can be used at the same time as the main system drive - this means you can't use two ATA/IDE drives attached to the same cable because of the ATA/IDE limitation of only one device being active at any given time. You can't read from one drive on the cable and write to the other drive on the same cable at the same time, so it's read, then write, read, then write.

If you have two ATA/IDE controllers, meaning two cables, then yep, you can put the pagefile/swapfile on the second drive, preferably at the very beginning of the drive to ensure the best possible speed for the pagefile/swapfile.

With SATA drives and controllers, that limitation doesn't exist since each drive has it's own cable and controller, for the most part.

The 1.5x physical RAM doesn't apply much anymore either; that was primarily used for older machines where having 128MB or 256MB of RAM would actually benefit from a 192MB or 384MB pagefile/swapfile (primarily Windows, UNIX/Linux OSes are a bit more efficient in terms of how they handle swap activity and memory management).

Two hard drives, on separate cables, and you're all set. You don't necessarily have to create a "special partition" just for pagefile/swapfile duties if you're running Windows. UNIX/Linux requires such a thing because the filesystem works differently, whereas Windows just uses NTFS for any and all hard drive activities across the board (yes you can use FAT32 but but but... if you have to ask why then this stuff is over your head).

Hope this helps...
 
Right now I have a separate partition on my primary HDD with a paging file with a constant size of 1024MB. I have 1GB (1024MB) of RAM. I’ve heard that the 1.5 times RAM rule should be applied. I also heard that the 1.5 rule is too much, and that the paging file should be the size of your RAM.

Would it be best for me to get rid of the extra partition and just leave the paging file on my primary “C” partition. As for the other NTFS formatted HDD (storage drive), should I set a constant size of 1024MB there as well or just half? I also have another HDD with Linux.

A paging file is different than a swapfile. They’re similar but not the same.

EDIT: All SATA drives
 
A pagefile on a separate partition isn't going to show any benefit over one on the system partition that's properly defragmented. In fact it could hurt performance if there's a lot of page-file thrashing along with heavy disk I/O due to the increased disk seek times swinging from one partition to the next. But that could also be said for large disks with a single partition. At best you'll have the same performance. Now if you move the pagefile to another disk (on a different channel for PATA) than the one the system is on, you can see some improved performance, but if your hitting the pagefile a lot you need to look elsewhere to increase performance.
 
In Windows, a pagefile = swapfile; it's used for "paging out" pages of code that are currently in RAM and the RAM is needed for something else. The system then assigns that page of RAM to be sent out to the virtual memory handler on the hard drive (aka the pagefile). If and when the particular page of data is requested it'll get "swapped" back into RAM from the pagefile.

In Windows, the terms page and swap are completely interchangeable, it's just that "swapfile" tended to be what it was called back in the Win 3.x and 9x days - the file literally was called win386.swp (swp meaning swap). Under NT4 and all NT based OSes since NT4 was released (2K, XP, 2K3, XP x64, 2K3 x64, Vista), it's pagefile.sys.

If you have a single hard drive and you split it into partitions, and the C: drive is the first partition and your pagefile isn't on that partition, you're hurting performance drastically, even if you placed the pagefile at the beginning of the second partition (wherever that may be based on how large the C: partition is).

Single drives need the pagefile on C:, regardless of how many partitions you may or may not have. If it's just one - C: - then you're all set by default, just let Windows manage it, seriously. There's not much you can really do to help.

The possible performance enhancements only happen if and when you have two physical hard drives on separate cables/controllers because in that instance Windows can read and write from both drives at the same time. This is all covered in the links above provided by markintosh13, most specifically the KB314482 article (first link) from which I'll quote something:

Microsoft KB article 314482 said:
The optimal solution is to create one paging file that is stored on the boot partition, and then create one paging file on another partition that is less frequently accessed on a different physical hard disk if a different physical hard disk is available.
Click to expand...

That article also says this in the very next sentence, but I find massive fault with it from a performance perspective:

Microsoft KB article 314482 said:
Additionally, it is optimal to create the second paging file so that it exists on its own partition, with no data or operating-system-specific files. By design, Windows uses the paging file on the less frequently accessed partition over the paging file on the more heavily accessed boot partition. An internal algorithm is used to determine which paging file to use for virtual memory management.
Click to expand...

While one might think that is perfectly legitimate, it flies in the face of reason: one hard drive with two partitions - only one of which can be read or written from at any given moment - having one as a boot partition and a second one where the pagefile is placed would never outperform two physical hard drives that can be read from or written to independently and simultaneously. You could theoretically say that a Raptor with split partitions would outperform a 4200 rpm hard drive set up the same way, but that's just being silly taken to that extreme. :)

Why Microsoft even put that last part there about "its own partition" should be corrected to say "its own physical hard drive or a partition on a separate physical hard drive." A pagefile on a single drive that's not sitting on the first partition on the drive - typically C:, the system drive and typically also the boot partition - is simply going to hamper performance across the board, period.

The only time you'll get any performance enhancements from moving the pagefile off the boot/system partition would be when you place it on a separate physical hard drive that can be accessed simultaneously.

Hope this helps...

ps
The old 1.5x RAM as I stated earlier isn't very valid much anymore. Pagefiles and the virtual memory subsystem really helped out with performance on machines that simply didn't have enough RAM. Think about it: at a time when a 64MB stick of RAM was $500, most people were happy having 32MB of RAM with a 48MB pagefile since it let them do a bit more, even at the cost of slower performance because of hitting the hard drive for swap activity.

Nowadays, with RAM so cheap, with 1GB the standard in most any desktop or laptop, and with XP still a major force in the now Vista-inclined marketplace, the 1.5x RAM doesn't really apply like it used to. Personally, for myself, I just give myself a 2GB (2048MB) pagefile on the first partition on a second physical drive and set the boot/system partition to a 16MB pagefile and never think twice about it, and that's with XP x64 and 1GB of physical RAM.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Personally, for myself, I just give myself a 2GB (2048MB) pagefile on the first partition on a second physical drive and set the boot/system partition to a 16MB pagefile and never think twice about it, and that's with XP x64 and 1GB of physical RAM.
Click to expand...


Is there any logical reason why you specifically used 2048MB and 16MB?
 
My pagefile has been disabled for months now and I suffer no ill effects.
With 2GB Ram, nothing I have played has ran out of memory (max mem use 1.81GB) and many things have less lag/delay in Windows and games. Current games are Oblivion with hires textures etc, Dirt, Call of Juarez, Driver Parallel lines and C&C 3.
Its not a bad system tweak.
My system runs for a week without need for reboot and is simply snappier to use without the pagefile :)

However, on the dark side...
If you do run out of memory your system is likely to go weird or crash, so be sure that you have enough memory for the things you use.
If a game/app is badly written and and has a memory leak you might need to turn the pagefile on again to play it.
 
Nenu said:
My pagefile has been disabled for months now and I suffer no ill effects.
With 2GB Ram, nothing I have played has ran out of memory (max mem use 1.81GB) and many things have less lag/delay in Windows and games. Current games are Oblivion with hires textures etc, Dirt, Call of Juarez, Driver Parallel lines and C&C 3.
Its not a bad system tweak.
My system runs for a week without need for reboot and is simply snappier to use without the pagefile :)

However, on the dark side...
If you do run out of memory your system is likely to go weird or crash, so be sure that you have enough memory for the things you use.
If a game/app is badly written and and has a memory leak you might need to turn the pagefile on again to play it.
Click to expand...

At one point, I disabled the paging file and never had any problems. I heard problems and performance issues with disabling the paging file. I added it back for those reasons.
 
The problem for people like the last two posters is they're under the mistaken assumption that setting the pagefile to 0 size or setting it to "No page file" is actually doing just that: running without a pagefile.

And they couldn't be further from the truth, as has been proven countless times over.

The pagefile is a functional component of the operating system and a major component of the virtual memory subsystem and as such it cannot simply be "switched off." You can believe what you want, but in all honesty, just because you think you're in control of Windows by telling it "I don't want no stinkin' pagefile" that you're Scott-free at that point is mistaken.

Windows still has a pagefile, it still creates one at every boot, it still pages data out to that pagefile, and it always will regardless of how much RAM you have - 2, 4, 8, 16, 32GB, it doesn't matter.

Windows always pages data and always will - it's how the OS was designed to operate and always has been operating regardless of what you think you've done to disable or prevent such an action or activity from occurring.

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but in the long run you've actually been hurting your performance. These days, people just have computers that are so fast natively because of fast CPUs with dual cores and fast RAM tied to fast hard drives that they've become jaded to the fact that they are hurting performance more than helping it by "disabling" the pagefile with that silly setting in Advanced options or choosing a min/max size of 0.

But you keep right on believing that placebo effect if you must and it makes you feel better. :)
 
lol you assume a lot.
I disable virtual memory but as everyone calls it the page file I call it that too.
Its a setting you can adjust easily and does make things run smoother.
I'm not under any pretense.

I suggest you give it a try :)
 
bbz_Ghost said:
The problem for people like the last two posters is they're under the mistaken assumption that setting the pagefile to 0 size or setting it to "No page file" is actually doing just that: running without a pagefile.
Click to expand...

r-486 said:
At one point, I disabled the paging file and never had any problems. I heard problems and performance issues with disabling the paging file. I added it back for those reasons.
Click to expand...

I currently don't do that. That was back about about two years ago when I first built my system. I did know that a paging file existed even if it was set to "0". I wasn't clear when I said the word "disabled".

Currently I'm running a large paging file on an external HDD and a small one on the system partition.
 
Nenu said:
lol you assume a lot.
I disable virtual memory but as everyone calls it the page file I call it that too.
Its a setting you can adjust easily and does make things run smoother.
I'm not under any pretense.

I suggest you give it a try :)
Click to expand...


You can't disable virtual memory in any OS that implements it. It's a fundamentla part of the memory management system.
 
They're under the "placebo effect," ryan. Nothing you or I will ever say will change that, but you and I already know it. Shame we keep trying, ain't it? :)
 
ryan_975 said:
You can't disable virtual memory in any OS that implements it. It's a fundamentla part of the memory management system.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you Ryan but when I tell my PC to stop making the file that is a few GB in size tby turning off virtual memory, it does indeed stop using the file.

I am fully aware of the internal operation of Windows NT based OS's, I have supported them for years so I dont need any form of derogatory comments bbz_Ghost. As such a long term user of this forum, you should know better!

I am stating my experience and if you class that as invalid, thats your problem not mine.
Dont go too far with your criticism though as you are close to calling me a liar.
I joined this thread to impart useful information which does work. You joined this thread to prove me wrong when you havent even tried it for yourself.
 
Nenu said:
Hate to tell you Ryan but when I tell my PC to stop making the file that is a few GB in size tby turning off virtual memory, it does indeed stop using the file.

I am fully aware of the internal operation of Windows NT based OS's, I have supported them for years so I dont need any form of derogatory comments bbz_Ghost. As such a long term user of this forum, you should know better!

I am stating my experience and if you class that as invalid, thats your problem not mine.
Dont go too far with your criticism though as you are close to calling me a liar.
I joined this thread to impart useful information which does work. You joined this thread to prove me wrong when you havent even tried it for yourself.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, You did not disable virtual memory, you disabled a part of the virtual memory subsystem, the pagefile. I didn't say you couldn't delete the file "pagefile.sys", I said you can't disable virtual memory, which is more than just the pagefile. Virtual memory is the addressing scheme used by Windows and other OS's. It allows for more memory to be addressed than is physically available and allows for those addresses to be relocated as needed (e.g. when swapping out to the pagefile).

But the fact of the matter is, if you're not hitting the pagefile (i.e. you're not running out physical RAM), then disabling the Pagefile can have no performance improvement. However, if you are hitting the pagefile a lot then disabling it will cause various problems with programs that call for RAM that isn't available. I've even seen XP reallocate a pagefile in some circumstances.

Another problem with disabling the pagefile is that large applications (Adobe CS series anyone?) will a lot of times request a tremendous amount of RAM to be allocated, even though it doesn't use it. XP however doesn't know what's going to be used and what's not, so it gives it all that it requests (unless it's not available). So if a Pagefile is available XP can move the unused address space to point at the pagefile a free up physical RAM for other processes.
 
ryan_975 said:
Hate to tell you, You did not disable virtual memory, you disabled a part of the virtual memory subsystem, the pagefile. I didn't say you couldn't delete the file "pagefile.sys", I said you can't disable virtual memory, which is more than just the pagefile. Virtual memory is the addressing scheme used by Windows and other OS's. It allows for more memory to be addressed than is physically available and allows for those addresses to be relocated as needed (e.g. when swapping out to the pagefile).

But the fact of the matter is, if you're not hitting the pagefile (i.e. you're not running out physical RAM), then disabling the Pagefile can have no performance improvement. However, if you are hitting the pagefile a lot then disabling it will cause various problems with programs that call for RAM that isn't available. I've even seen XP reallocate a pagefile in some circumstances.

Another problem with disabling the pagefile is that large applications (Adobe CS series anyone?) will a lot of times request a tremendous amount of RAM to be allocated, even though it doesn't use it. XP however doesn't know what's going to be used and what's not, so it gives it all that it requests (unless it's not available). So if a Pagefile is available XP can move the unused address space to point at the pagefile a free up physical RAM for other processes.
Click to expand...

Right, my original statement still stands.
I already said that some apps need more memory, in this case disabling the "virtual memory setting" isnt for you. Like I said I have had it disabled for months now and not had ANY issues.
Having disabled the Virtual Memory setting in Windows, my computer has been more responsive, thats it, thats all I was saying!

I didnt mention the other types of paging for the Kernel etc, I simply stated that by disabling the Virtual Memory setting I received better performance. Thats why I posted about it in this thread as someone else might find it useful.
I am not mistaken, I am not making it up and I dont see the need for your argument when I have not made the claims you think I have.
 
Nenu said:
my computer has been more responsive
Click to expand...

Nenu said:
by disabling the Virtual Memory setting I received better performance.
Click to expand...

All typical and perfectly reasonable responses to... <drumroll please> "The Placebo Effect." It's not something you can measure, it's something you can prove, it just "feels" faster and more responsive. We all know that one, and that's fine. No one is going to debate who knows what around here, and I won't go tossing my 30+ years around and decades of experience with Windows - oops... guess I'll drop that now.

Suffice to say that those in the know will find someone that isn't in the know but thinks they are and listens to them claim all sorts of absolute fallacies about tweaks or "performance enhancements" in Windows operating systems that have been proven false and invalid time and time and time again.

Those in the know just laugh about it and make a small effort to school the person not in the know and then move on to people that are more open to reason and logic. But that's fine, I made my small effort, ryan made his, now we move on to people that will actually benefit from the knowledge we have without slamming the door on the facts, as simple as they may be.

Oh yeah...

HA HA, it is to laugh.

NEXT!!!
 
Thats ok, I'll use the tweak and benefit from it while you use your 'superior' knowledge.
lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top