A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated) discussion
about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall that
the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of your
RAM was disowned by several experts.

So I was surprised to find that, having recently changed my own setup
to 'System Managed', that this rule is apparently being used by the OS
itself. (In my case, with 512 MB, it has reserved 767 MB.)

Is this rule indeed 'respectable' again please?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated) discussion
> about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall that
> the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of your
> RAM was disowned by several experts.
>
> So I was surprised to find that, having recently changed my own setup
> to 'System Managed', that this rule is apparently being used by the OS
> itself. (In my case, with 512 MB, it has reserved 767 MB.)
>
> Is this rule indeed 'respectable' again please?

Article ID : 314482
Last Review : May 13, 2004
Revision : 1.0
....
The default, or recommended, paging file size is equal to 1.5 times the
total RAM. ...

Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
> A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated) discussion
> about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall that
> the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of your
> RAM was disowned by several experts.
>
> So I was surprised to find that, having recently changed my own setup
> to 'System Managed', that this rule is apparently being used by the OS
> itself. (In my case, with 512 MB, it has reserved 767 MB.)
>
> Is this rule indeed 'respectable' again please?

Best bet is to just let windows do its thing with the page/swap. Keep in
mind that while it may reserve that much, it doesnt mean its using that
much.

--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Terry

My PC has 4 GB Ram: if virtual memory is set to system managed it will be
set to 3.5 GB. The system page file size in Windows XP+SP2 may ignore the
user settings for Virtual Memory in Control panel: they may revert to a
system default if the Registry has more than one setting for
HKLM\System\ControlSetnnn
where "nnn" is the number of the last ControlSet before CurrentControlSet.

Though Windows does not necessarily use all the pagefile set, it will
reserve disk space which is then not available to the user for applications
and processes.

You can check how large your system managed page file is on the DISK by
looking for pagefile.sys in the root directory of C:\ and checking the
properties. Sometimes they are quite different to the settings in Control
Panel for Virtual Memory
Uncle John

"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in [clipped]i>
> Best bet is to just let windows do its thing with the page/swap. Keep in
> mind that while it may reserve that much, it doesnt mean its using that
> much.

"Uncle John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Terry
>
>My PC has 4 GB Ram: if virtual memory is set to system managed it will be
>set to 3.5 GB. The system page file size in Windows XP+SP2 may ignore the
>user settings for Virtual Memory in Control panel: they may revert to a
>system default if the Registry has more than one setting for
>HKLM\System\ControlSetnnn
>where "nnn" is the number of the last ControlSet before CurrentControlSet.
>
>Though Windows does not necessarily use all the pagefile set, it will
>reserve disk space which is then not available to the user for applications
>and processes.
>
>You can check how large your system managed page file is on the DISK by
>looking for pagefile.sys in the root directory of C:\ and checking the
>properties. Sometimes they are quite different to the settings in Control
>Panel for Virtual Memory
>Uncle John
>
>"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in [clipped]i>
>> Best bet is to just let windows do its thing with the page/swap. Keep in
>> mind that while it may reserve that much, it doesnt mean its using that
>> much.
>

Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm puzzled mainly by the fact
that swap file size set goes up linearly with RAM size. Couldn't you
justifiably argue that it should go down? The more RAM you *actually*
have, the less *virtual* RAM you need?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

With only 512MB then 1.5 times is reasonable.

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated) discussion
> about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall that
> the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of your
> RAM was disowned by several experts.
>
> So I was surprised to find that, having recently changed my own setup
> to 'System Managed', that this rule is apparently being used by the OS
> itself. (In my case, with 512 MB, it has reserved 767 MB.)
>
> Is this rule indeed 'respectable' again please?
>

Paging isn't such an issue as it was just a few years ago. Most PCs
today have 256+ physical memory in them. I have 1.0 Gigabyte of
Dual-Channel DDR and even with "Heavy" loading ( Audio mastering,
Virtual PCs) my pagefile use is almost negligible. However, it's still
a vital/core function of XP (2000, NT = which has it's roots in code
from DEC VMS (Virtual Memory System). I think you'll find in the
future versions of Windows a somewhat modified approach to the
setup/size of Pagefile space. If you are interested in a more "Techie"
explanation of the topic, read the following:
http://www.support.microsoft.com/def...555223&SD=tech



"Terry Pinnell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Uncle John" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Terry
>>
>>My PC has 4 GB Ram: if virtual memory is set to system managed it will be
>>set to 3.5 GB. The system page file size in Windows XP+SP2 may ignore the
>>user settings for Virtual Memory in Control panel: they may revert to a
>>system default if the Registry has more than one setting for
>>HKLM\System\ControlSetnnn
>>where "nnn" is the number of the last ControlSet before CurrentControlSet.
>>
>>Though Windows does not necessarily use all the pagefile set, it will
>>reserve disk space which is then not available to the user for
>>applications
>>and processes.
>>
>>You can check how large your system managed page file is on the DISK by
>>looking for pagefile.sys in the root directory of C:\ and checking the
>>properties. Sometimes they are quite different to the settings in Control
>>Panel for Virtual Memory
>>Uncle John
>>
>>"Plato" <|@|.|> wrote in [clipped]i>
>>> Best bet is to just let windows do its thing with the page/swap. Keep in
>>> mind that while it may reserve that much, it doesnt mean its using that
>>> much.
>>
>
> Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm puzzled mainly by the fact
> that swap file size set goes up linearly with RAM size. Couldn't you
> justifiably argue that it should go down? The more RAM you *actually*
> have, the less *virtual* RAM you need?
>
> --
> Terry, West Sussex, UK

In news:(E-Mail Removed),
Terry Pinnell <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated)
> discussion
> about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall
> that
> the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of
> your
> RAM was disowned by several experts.
>
> So I was surprised to find that, having recently changed my own
> setup
> to 'System Managed', that this rule is apparently being used by
> the OS
> itself. (In my case, with 512 MB, it has reserved 767 MB.)
>
> Is this rule indeed 'respectable' again please?



It never was respectable. Read the late MVP Alex Nichol's article
"Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

In news(E-Mail Removed),
Terry Pinnell <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'm puzzled mainly by the
> fact
> that swap file size set goes up linearly with RAM size.
> Couldn't you
> justifiably argue that it should go down? The more RAM you
> *actually*
> have, the less *virtual* RAM you need?


Exactly right.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:26:25 +0100 in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, Terry Pinnell favored us with...
> A few years ago there used to be much (sometimes heated) discussion
> about the 'optimum' size of the XP swap file. I vaguely recall that
> the widely-quoted rule of thumb of using 1.5 times the size of your
> RAM was disowned by several experts.

Bert Kinney gave what I think is the definitive answer: there's no
hard-and-fast rule. Your best bet is to let Windows manage it and see
how large it actually gets.

The 1.5 times (or 2 times) rule is inherently silly. For a given set
of tasks, the more physical ram you have the _less_ page file space
you would normally need. But again, Win XP does a decent job of
managing that so the best advice is just to let it alone.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Fortunately, I live in the United States of America, where we are
gradually coming to understand that nothing we do is ever our
fault, especially if it is really stupid. --Dave Barry