Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
M11 said:Put one pagefile on each drive. Make them approximately the same size, considering that the windows drive is faster but has OS overhead.
Instability? I have never seen this instability that you speak of. It has worked fine evertime everywhere I've done it/seen it done.djnes said:You definitely don't want to split your pagefile or span it across two non-RAIDed drives. This would be a lesson in system instability.
GreNME said:What a plethora of misinformation!
Your right, if your referring to your own post. It's been benchmarked, proven, explained, and demonstrated in countless guides online. Not to mention when you actually DO disable it, you can notice the difference right after the reboot. Apps open faster, switching between apps is faster, and level loads in games are faster. It's one of the few tweaks you can do to a PC that you can actually notice WITHOUT running synthetic benchmarks. The only misinformation posted on the [H] in the countless threads about this are those people who claim it's not going to change anything. First hand accounts by myself and many others on here beg to differ with your "claims".
M11 said:Instability? I have never seen this instability that you speak of. It has worked fine evertime everywhere I've done it/seen it done.
Bullshit. Find me the "countless guides" online, and let's take it a step further: put your money where your mouth is. I'll do the same thing I've already done on this forum before, which is have multiple people take their systems, and run multiple benchmarks for different things both with and without a page file. I will guarantee you that the results will come back the same as they did then, and the same as they have on the four different machines I've personally tested: no performance increase.djnes said:Your right, if your referring to your own post. It's been benchmarked, proven, explained, and demonstrated in countless guides online. Not to mention when you actually DO disable it, you can notice the difference right after the reboot. Apps open faster, switching between apps is faster, and level loads in games are faster. It's one of the few tweaks you can do to a PC that you can actually notice WITHOUT running synthetic benchmarks. The only misinformation posted on the [H] in the countless threads about this are those people who claim it's not going to change anything.
No, those "first hand accounts" are nothing but the wonders of placebo effect.First hand accounts by myself and many others on here beg to differ with your "claims".
Back in the days of NT4 everything was shit and everything was blamed at one point or another. And I have done this not just on my SIX personal systems with multiple drives, but on countless custom gaming PCs that I've assembled. In a few days when I wipe my system, I think it might be benchmark time.djnes said:Maybe on your one system, but it's been strictly warned against even back in the days of NT 4.0.
PF != VM, it's a subset of VMM. Yes, you still page, and use VM when you disable to PF.GreNME said:Afterwards, I will explain to you in a little more detail how even when you have used the Windows setting to disable the page file, you are still working with virtual memory, which means that the hard disk is still being used to handle memory calls. I get a little sick of the regular influxes of people spreading misinformation.
I never said that PF == VM. In fact, I am saying that those who use the "memory bus is faster than HDD bus" argument are missing the point that the virtual memory management is still happening (at the lowest level, through the HAL), so you're not skipping any steps in the path of memory management. In other words, Phoenix, that (PM != VM) is precisely what I'm saying.Phoenix86 said:PF != VM, it's a subset of VMM. Yes, you still page, and use VM when you disable to PF.
Well, I have some for-pay benchmarking tools that can do that, pretty much by running a series of scripted processes (using, for instance, MS Office), and outputting results. However, I can't expect everyone who wants to challenge this to go out and spend money on them.The performance boosts would be difficult to measure, how do you measure alt-tabbing load times? I wouldn't go so far to say it helps with load times, however.
Do you mean increase or decrease there when talking about disabling the PF? I thought the point was to decrease the number of page faults on running programs.What removing the PF does do is increase paging operations, not general use of the PC.
Show me a benchmark that does measures that aspect and you have your tool. I'm aware of nothing that does this. Which is why it's hard to get a handle of what it does help. However, even if it can't be measured, that doesn't mean it doesn't help.
I just want to point that out before the discussion gets of track, so many people read one thing and apply it to another. And the "RAM is faster than HDD" still applies, just only to the part of VMM you move from disk to RAM, namely the PF. However, people thinking removing the PF will stop all paging are dead wrong. This is why people get confused when they look in the task manager and still paging activity (with no PF).GreNME said:I never said that PF == VM. In fact, I am saying that those who use the "memory bus is faster than HDD bus" argument are missing the point that the virtual memory management is still happening (at the lowest level, through the HAL), so you're not skipping any steps in the path of memory management. In other words, Phoenix, that (PM != VM) is precisely what I'm saying.
Phoenix86 said:Quote:
What removing the PF does do is increase paging operations, not general use of the PC.
Show me a benchmark that does measures that aspect and you have your tool. I'm aware of nothing that does this. Which is why it's hard to get a handle of what it does help. However, even if it can't be measured, that doesn't mean it doesn't help.
I meant increase the speed of paging operations because it's move to RAM instead of the HDD. To decrease the actual number of page faults... *I'm* not sure that's possible without a major hack/change to the VMM system. The point isn't to reduce the number of page faults themselves, but when paging does happen, it's not noticed as much.GreNME said:Do you mean increase or decrease there when talking about disabling the PF? I thought the point was to decrease the number of page faults on running programs.
To be honest, this would more be a matter of having the programs themselves not paging as much, IMO. Obviously, the program can't dictate to the OS how to manage memory, and the OS can't arbitrarily assign times for page faults, but I think the answer lies somewhere in-between writing better management for the OS alone and providing better development tools for programs. Frankly, I think too many software companies are applying old-school thinking when developing, and OS vendors are trying to maintain insane backwards-compatibility with it, creating a vicious cycle. Both Linux and Windows, as far as I can tell, have very effective VMM systems, but most programs don't make active use of them. I would posit that has something to do with the cost of re-upping training and cleaning house of sloppy code.If you could reduce the number of page faults required, that would be an improvement on VMM, and I think MS would want to talk to you.
GreNME said:Prove it, djines. If you can't prove it, you are just explaining the typical "it feels faster" syndrome. Currently, there exists only one source I know of who claims faster performance without the PF, and that is Quack Viper, who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground to begin with. I offered my challenge. You can either take it or quit claiming that there is any real proof. Anything else would just be silly.
Which you cannot compare to other people's experience and hard evidence, as it seems to contradict repeatable results.djnes said:Well, ummm, I can count seconds...as I explained in my previous post.
My mistake, consider it done.First off, spell my nickname right.....
Ad-hominem attacks only make your argument that much weaker. When in doubt, toss insults? Not very smart.second, what possible to you hope to gain by trying to get me to believe your opinion? Are you that insecure?
Your opinion offers no repeatable results, and is based on anecdotal evidence. Unless you wish to take my challenge and see if you can prove it with hard evidence, you are simply talking nonsense.My opinion, based on testing and performance guides I have read in the past, when XP was first released absolutely recommended for gaming performance, disable the pagefile.
Who gives a crap? I've been to more Microsoft seminars than I can count, there are Microsoft programmers who frequent this board, and all of them will tell you the same thing: disabling the PF gives you no performance boost.I attended an event in the First Union Center in November of 2001 for the release of XP, and I listened to the small lecture given on Windows Gaming and XP.
Get a solid quote, not something you are dredging up from memory of three years ago. Get hard evidence of someone who actually develops making this claim. I will guarantee you that you cannot.Microsoft's gaming reps themselves suggested it. You know...the ones who develop games for the PC?
Very nice to hear you have convinced yourself that it is faster, even though empirical data shows otherwise. People used to say the Earth FEELS flat, too...Furthurmore, it definitely does FEEL faster, which is more than anyone can say for most tweaks.
Translation: you don't want to deal with the embarrassment of being wrong after so adamantly refusing to aquiesce, even when someone else who disable their PF (Phoenix86) has questioned your claim.I don't really have time for little pissing contests as your suggesting. I gave you a count of the seconds for load times in games. As I stated before, my system is a gaming machine ONLY....so if it speeds up my load times, you can be damn sure I will do it.
1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 will always = 2.As with most things, maybe your results may vary.
Sorry you don't like facts, but your opinion means jack and squat when compared to actual facts.Sorry if you don't like my opinion, but for my system(s) it does make a difference. I proved it on my own system, and that's all I care about. If there was a true test of this, I would gladly do it when I return from my vacation. I'm finishing up my RAID vs non-RAID comparison as we speak.
That's a bad statement. You cannot guarantee what others will say, regardless of who is correct on the facts. A better statement is you have not read this yourself, and/or read the opposite.Get a solid quote, not something you are dredging up from memory of three years ago. Get hard evidence of someone who actually develops making this claim. I will guarantee you that you cannot.
Phoenix86 said:WHY DID MS PUT THE OPTION IN THE OS?
Gee, shall I give my testing lab specs and credentials as well? Looks like you're the one who is trying to have a pissing match.djnes said:GreNME....look at you giving me a lecture on testing results. Wow...I had no idea of those things...despite all my lab time in college on scientific testing. Imagine that.
There are already tests out there to handle programs in a manner that would test the page file. However, they cost money. Not a whole lot of money, but they cost. And as I already said, we can choose from an agreed-upon list instead of one person dictating the parameters. You seemed to have missed that little point.Since you had trouble reading it, while you were dreaming up your ridiculous responses, I will say it again. Come up with a scientific test, and I will do it.
More ad-homs. Your position is wavering.Let me play your game for a second, big man.....
Reading is fundemental. I never said it hurts performance. I said it doesn't help. It's a bogus "tweak" that yields no discernable advantages.put YOUR money where your mouth is. Show me proof that it HURTS performance.
Nice straw man tactic. However, I'm not arguing about lessened performance, and I'm not on your machine. I am stating facts about how the virtual memory works across the board. You are taking my statements and turning them into an argument they are not. That's your problem, not mine.Don't give me links saying it's not recommended. I am fully aware of the drawbacks. Don't lecture me on how XP really does page, even without an actual file. I am fully aware of all of this. Show me how MY system is performing less than it would if I do have a pagefile.
As I already stated, I've done it before. Here on this forum, with not a single result yeilding increased performance, not even from those claiming it would.There's nothing more immature that accusing someone of something you yourself are doing.
Yes, it is. Anecdotal evidence is where you are testing without repeatable and verifiable results, taken from a personal (I "feel" it) point of view. Counting seconds does not a scientific experiment make. Have the results recreated on other people's machines, under the same circumstances, and you will have data. To date, you have supplied none.Your previous post is riddled with hypocrisies. I gave you the results of my own testing. Counting seconds is hardly anecdotal.
Once again with the ad-hominem. I can assure you that you will get nowhere in the industry if you can't prove what you say. To date, you still cannot.Seriously man, you'll get no where in this industry putting down others to make yourself feel important. We have a name for you....we call them "Marketing Folks".
Dropping names (like Anand) and naming benchmarks isn't giving you any more credence. Changing the subject isn't making you look any more believable. Show me where Anand has yielded recordable and repeatable test results for the page file, not another subject.I have no trouble admitting when I'm wrong. I always praised RAID setups on a desktop....even after reading Anand's article. So, I did my own testing and have found out it really doesn't show much of a difference, except in the synthetic benchies, like PCMark04, Sisoft, etc.
No, but there are system stressing programs out there (from eTestingLabs, for instance) that load more than one app using a script and perform various tasks to put numerous loads on the system from different standpoints. This is done to see how program suites (like, say, MS Office) perform under different hardware configs and such.Fark_Maniac said:I really do wish I had a camcorder...I'd record myself loading up games/maps as well as navigating menus with and without a pagefile. Memory will always load faster than a hard drive...so why keep your system on the hard drive?
Are there tests out there that measures the ability to switch applications/load game maps...etc?
Indeed, but I am seriously trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.Phoenix86 said:That's a bad statement. You cannot guarantee what others will say, regardless of who is correct on the facts. A better statement is you have not read this yourself, and/or read the opposite.
For the same reason Linux, BSD, OSX, and Solaris (among other OSes) have a swap file.Phoenix86 said:All of this debate, and no one has asked the most simple of questions...
WHY DID MS PUT THE OPTION IN THE OS?
I think the answer to the argument lies in that question.
There are, however, settings to not have it automatically reboot on BSOD, and to choose between dump file sizes. So the option is there, as well.djnes said:Last time I checked...all joking aside, there's no option for "Enable BSOD on reboot", so one would take that to mean it's at the very least, not a negative thing.
GreNME said:And the ad-homs just don't stop.
First, take a stand. The change will change performance, good or bad, it will. It may or may not be measurable, but I guarantee this: changing your PF options to, static size, dynamic sizes, locations, spanning, or no PF, will affect performance.I never said it hurts performance. I said it doesn't help.
That means, in some cases, with some hardware, and some software, the option IS a valid optimal setting. This is why I bring up the option, the fact it's there means it is likely to help in some cases. It also means it's not likely to negatively impact your settings.What is the optimum configuration for it?
The answer there is the same as many OS questions: it depends on the user, the hardware, the tasks it will be performing, and the duration/load level of regular operation.
Phoenix86 said:Stop watches work for the olympics...
O[H]-Zone, right on.
I have not seen people recommend no PF w/o discussing needs and hardware first, esp. not djnes.
OK, admittedly I wasn't as hyped about doing some benchies the first time GrenME wanted to, but if we can solve a long standing debate... I'm in.
No, you're missing an option. This isn't binary. There are three outcomes in a true scientific test with a control and a variable:Phoenix86 said:First, take a stand. The change will change performance, good or bad, it will. It may or may not be measurable, but I guarantee this: changing your PF options to, static size, dynamic sizes, locations, spanning, or no PF, will affect performance.
I see your hedging from your position now, again, or maybe I'm reading closer... If "it (doesn't) hurt performance" and "it doesn't help performance" that only leaves one options left.
"it does help performance"
You may hold that opinion, but I have never seen a configuration where this is so. I have seen workstations, servers, renderers, home-internet-browsers, and game rigs. None of them would have performed better sans paging file. Some of them would perform worse, and others would gain nothing. Still well within the three options that changing a variable can produce.Phoenix86 said:That means, in some cases, with some hardware, and some software, the option IS a valid optimal setting. This is why I bring up the option, the fact it's there means it is likely to help in some cases. It also means it's not likely to negatively impact your settings.
Wrong, as I've already stated.O[H said:-Zone]djnes: GreNME's just not going to concede unless you run benchmarks that HE specifies,
Wrong again. Results that anyone, repeating the exact same steps, can repeat consistently. There is currently no data showing consistency of the claims, much like the disabling services issue.O[H said:-Zone]and gets results that HE can repeat.
A stopwatch isn't going to count as data unless everyone present or a third, objective party is present at each timing to give the results. I seriously doubt this is going to happen, considering the distances involved.O[H said:-Zone]GreNME: I would suggest that timing things with stopwatches IS data...just not a form you're comfortable with. And djnes just isn't going to concede that "it feels faster" isn't reason enough.
Where everyone is present to both observe and request verification of results. If you all want to plan a get-together to hash this out, that's cool. We'll share a few beers over it.Phoenix86 said:Stop watches work for the olympics...
Now all we have to do is find methods that all parties agree on from which to test. Without that, everything is still well in the realm of conjecture.Phoenix86 said:OK, admittedly I wasn't as hyped about doing some benchies the first time GrenME wanted to, but if we can solve a long standing debate... I'm in.
You find a way that will count mississippis in a verifiable and consistent manner (meaning human counting is out), and you will finally be agreeing to my original challenge.djnes said:I'd be more than happy to count in "mississippi's" if that is more acceptable to GreNME.
Agreed. However, having different numbers from different configurations (and RAM sizes) is acceptable to me.Phoenix86 said:Things we need to agree on. First, we need a method. How do we 'induce' paging so we can test it's performance? Loading word, excel, and powerpoint isn't going to cause a 1gb system to page, but it might cause a system with 256MB RAM to do so...
Once again, agreed. That's why I hesitated to suggest the benches that cost money.Phoenix86 said:Next, we need an application. We can compare specific things like djnes' example of load times of BF1942, but if we don't all have bf1942, I don't think we can get enough data to compare. Maybe not, maybe there are enough people out there willing to test the exact same thing. We would need, at least, 3 machines with the same software to get a basic comparison.
If we're using tests running in tandem, we could try to find something to test the total machine performance as a general measure of performance. It's not paging we have to measurewe already know paging goes onit's overall performance.Phoenix86 said:Then, we need a measurement tool. Here I'm at a loss, suggestions? There may be a tool/app combo that will work, but I doubt it because of what we are measuring, PF performance, not just load times, overall FPS.
I meant with regard to one drive or two drivesGreNME said:Photoshop requires a page file to work. It'll be biased.