Pagefile.sys

[Twayne]

Let me quote:

"When you set the paging file (Pagefile.sys) on
your
computer to a size that is lower than the
recommended
size of 12 megabytes (MB) plus the amount of
random
access memory (RAM), a temporary paging file
(Temppf.sys)
*may* be created"
"Windows NT creates only one temporary file,
TEMPPF.SYS.
This is a temporary paging file created at boot
time
*whenever the system detects that the current
paging file
configuration is not sufficient and might
prevent you
from correcting the deficiency.*"
This means: if Windows thinks there is not
enough
physical ram to operate, it will create a small
temporary
paging file. It does NOT mean it cannot live
without one.

Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really
large machine?
Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in
operation and cannot be "turned off." What is
meant by such wording is "set the system to use no
page file space at all."

Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The
reason is that when programs ask for an allocation
of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great
deal more than they ever actually bring into use -
the total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes.
These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere
by the system. If there is a page file available,
the system can assign them to it - if there is
not, they have to be assigned to RAM, locking it
out from any actual use.



How big should the page file be?
There is a great deal of myth surrounding this
question. Two big fallacies are:

a.. The file should be a fixed size so that it
does not get fragmented, with minimum and maximum
set the same
b.. The file should be 2.5 times the size of RAM
(or some other multiple)
Both are wrong in a modern, single-user system. A
machine using Fast User switching is a special
case, discussed below.)...

....



Twayne

 

[dennis]

Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really
large machine?
Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in
operation and cannot be "turned off." What is
meant by such wording is "set the system to use no
page file space at all."

I hinted in another post that virtual memory is NOT the paging file.

Virtual memory is the kind of memory the CPU presents to software
running on it. Through the page table (managed by the OS) will it then
translate the virtual addresses into physical ones.

Now, if a virtual address is not described in the page file, it can tell
the OS. If the OS has paged data out, it now has the opportunity to page
data back in.

No, virtual memory cannot be disabled. But virtual memory is NOT the
paging file. Which I hinted earlier.

 

[W****n S***********g]

Let's get Bill Gates in on this one, please hold...

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really large machine?
Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be
"turned off." What is meant by such wording is "set the system to use no
page file space at all."

Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when programs
ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask for a great
deal more than they ever actually bring into use - the total may easily
run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to
somewhere by the system. If there is a page file available, the system can
assign them to it - if there is not, they have to be assigned to RAM,
locking it out from any actual use.



How big should the page file be?
There is a great deal of myth surrounding this question. Two big fallacies
are:

a.. The file should be a fixed size so that it does not get fragmented,
with minimum and maximum set the same
b.. The file should be 2.5 times the size of RAM (or some other multiple)
Both are wrong in a modern, single-user system. A machine using Fast User
switching is a special case, discussed below.)...

...



Twayne

A nice 'word for word' quote from the late great Alex Nichol. He was one of
the best, and so pleasant in his delivery..

 

[VanguardLH]

Let me quote:

"When you set the paging file (Pagefile.sys) on your computer to a size
that is lower than the recommended size of 12 megabytes (MB) plus the
amount of random access memory (RAM), a temporary paging file
(Temppf.sys) *may* be created"

"Windows NT creates only one temporary file, TEMPPF.SYS. This is a
temporary paging file created at boot time *whenever the system detects
that the current paging file configuration is not sufficient and might
prevent you from correcting the deficiency.*"

This means: if Windows thinks there is not enough physical ram to
operate, it will create a small temporary paging file. It does NOT mean
it cannot live without one.

The temppf.sys pagefile is created when Windows starts up.
Not after you login.
Not after you load your applications.
Not after physical RAM has been exhausted.
On startup!

 

[VanguardLH]

IMO your inflexible comments on the way to use
things are better aimed at professionals where
such thnigs might matter in some way for but
newbies and the inexperienced, it's a much simpler
and more lax case where the nuances aren't
necessary nor do they add to the requested
assistance. Your assistance might be a lot more
appreciated on professional groups where greater
background details going well beyond the OP's
question are more the norm.
Also, if you'd like to carry on a side
conversation that appears to be going off topic
quickly, you may wish to start your own thread
rather than hijack this one.

Twayne

Typical car drivers don't bother to check their tire pressures at
regular intervals but that doesn't obviate good advice.

Just how was the content of my post "inflexible"? I didn't issue any
commandments on how to configure the pagefile. I made a
*recommendation*.

BTW:
Is there a reason why you set line-wrap at an overly short 50
characters?

 

[VanguardLH]

Don't tell me to bugger of like that, when you don't understand the
subject.

<snip>

He replied to me, not you. From my post:

Message-ID: <[email protected]>

From his reply (to my post):

References: ... <[email protected]>

He thinks I made some commandment rather than a recommendation. Odd
interpretation but who knows what was his mood at the time.

In his reply, he snipped out the quoting level containing my post's
content so inside the body it looks like he is replying to you. He
replied to me but maybe he meant to address it to you. Hard to tell
what he meant to do. He also needlessly and against netiquette changed
the Subject header and wasn't even polite enough to append ("was: ...").

 

[Twayne]

Don't tell me to bugger of like that, when you
don't understand the
subject.

I will tell you anything I wish to tell you. You
have no control over me and never will have any.

Now the claim is: programs always reference
virtual memory, and thus
you always need a paging file.

This is so not true as it can get. So I am not
allowed to comment?

1. I didn't say anything about what you are/were
"allowed" to do. I have no control over you. I
made a suggestion you consider being told to
bugger of.

OK, if you think that's telling you to "bugger
of", then bugger of!

If you have a working brain cell or two, you can
read the previous information and learn all you
want about the subject. I backed it up with plenty
of verifiable sources you seem to be too lazy to
bother with. It is obvious who cannot understand
the subject here, and it's a pretty simple one at
that. Bugger of... .

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

Typical car drivers don't bother to check their
tire pressures at
regular intervals but that doesn't obviate good
advice.

Just how was the content of my post
"inflexible"? I didn't issue any
commandments on how to configure the pagefile.
I made a
*recommendation*.

BTW:
Is there a reason why you set line-wrap at an
overly short 50
characters?

Yes.

 

[Twayne]

A nice 'word for word' quote from the late great
Alex Nichol. He was
one of the best, and so pleasant in his
delivery..

Mike,

Yup. He and Russ R. are pretty much my heroes and
I've never found anything either of them wrote to
be very far from 101% accurate.

It looks like it was either snipped, or I forgot
to attribute the article. Glad you brought it
out. May he rest in peace and the results of his
good work linger on for posterity.

Twayne

 

[dennis]

If you have a working brain cell or two, you can
read the previous information and learn all you
want about the subject. I backed it up with plenty
of verifiable sources you seem to be too lazy to
bother with. It is obvious who cannot understand
the subject here, and it's a pretty simple one at
that. Bugger of... .

You haven't backed anything up. You are quoting your sources the wrong way.

 

[dennis]

You haven't backed anything up. You are quoting your sources the wrong way.

Let me just spell it out to you what is wrong with your source-quoting.

The claim was: applications reference virtual memory and thus a paging
file is always needed.

Then you find a source that says: "Virtual memory is always in use and
cannot be disabled." This you tie to the paging file. Obvious you have
no sense of the subject. So read a bit more about it, please.

 

[Daave]

VanguardLH wrote:

Yes.

So what is the reason?

 

[JD]

snip<

Yes.

I'm curious also. Why the short line wrap?

 

[Twayne]

I'm curious also. Why the short line wrap?

lol, sorry! I got interrupted & apparently sent it prematurely.
Premature Sendulation? lol

The short lines aren't on purpose. I'm using OEQuotefix for several
years and suddenly either it or OE are doing someting funny. All the
settings appear compatible but I'm getting variable length line wrap and
also the "|" quote character vs the ">" that they're programmed for.
Not malware, far's I can find, so that leaves corruption of some
sort. Sorry; am working on it.

Regards,

Twayne

 

[Daave]

lol, sorry! I got interrupted & apparently sent it prematurely.
Premature Sendulation? lol

The short lines aren't on purpose. I'm using OEQuotefix for several
years and suddenly either it or OE are doing someting funny. All the
settings appear compatible but I'm getting variable length line wrap
and also the "|" quote character vs the ">" that they're programmed
for.
Not malware, far's I can find, so that leaves corruption of some
sort. Sorry; am working on it.

What message format are you using: MIME or Uuencode? At any rate, your
word wrap is apparently back to 72 characters!

 

[Twayne]

What message format are you using: MIME or Uuencode? At any rate, your
word wrap is apparently back to 72 characters!

Mime format but my post should have been Plain Text; right?. It is in
my Sent folder at least.
Now it's quit putting the cursor at the bottom of the mail for me;
verrry strange! I did unset/set some things, so maybe I did that.
Think I'm going to redownload/reinstall OEQuotefix.

Thanks,

Twayne

 

[VanguardLH]

Mime format but my post should have been Plain Text; right?. It is in
my Sent folder at least.
Now it's quit putting the cursor at the bottom of the mail for me;
verrry strange! I did unset/set some things, so maybe I did that.
Think I'm going to redownload/reinstall OEQuotefix.

For newsgroups, use MIME encoding but set to "None". Also check the
line-wrap setting.

OE-QuoteFix has been abandoned for 6 years. Microsoft came out with
some program updates back around 2002 with which OE-QF was incompatible.
There are some notes on their web site about the incompatibility. As I
recall, you had to NOT set "read as plain text" so the same old renderer
was used. There was some other setting you had to use in OE but which
lowered security to get OE-QF to work. You had to allow externally
linked content, like images that could be used as web beacons.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

If you want the signature to go at the bottom of your posts (where it
should always be regardless of your preference for top- or bottom-
posting - but, alas, many MVPs using OE are too lazy to bother with) and
to set OE to bottom-post, you can use registry edits for that. The
registry changes were described in the release doc for Service Pack 2
for Windows XP.

See Microsoft's KB article 886340.

 

[Twayne]

For newsgroups, use MIME encoding but set to "None". Also check the
line-wrap setting.

OE-QuoteFix has been abandoned for 6 years. Microsoft came out with
some program updates back around 2002 with which OE-QF was
incompatible. There are some notes on their web site about the
incompatibility. As I recall, you had to NOT set "read as plain
text" so the same old renderer was used. There was some other
setting you had to use in OE but which lowered security to get OE-QF
to work. You had to allow externally linked content, like images
that could be used as web beacons.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

If you want the signature to go at the bottom of your posts (where it
should always be regardless of your preference for top- or bottom-
posting - but, alas, many MVPs using OE are too lazy to bother with)
and to set OE to bottom-post, you can use registry edits for that.
The registry changes were described in the release doc for Service
Pack 2 for Windows XP.

See Microsoft's KB article 886340.

Hmm, thanks; been wondering if I could relocate that info.

Yeah, I'm aware of its shortcomings and abandonment - no big deal for
something that half-fast works well<g>.
It's been working pretty well for years but now it's apparently gone
wacky; corruption, whatever. So the info is useful since I'm going to
reinstall & start from scratch.

Twayne

 

[VanguardLH]

Hmm, thanks; been wondering if I could relocate that info.

Yeah, I'm aware of its shortcomings and abandonment - no big deal for
something that half-fast works well<g>.
It's been working pretty well for years but now it's apparently gone
wacky; corruption, whatever. So the info is useful since I'm going to
reinstall & start from scratch.

Twayne

That's what I figure you'd have to do (record your settings, uninstall,
and reinstall). You might also disable e-mail scanning in your
anti-virus software in case that proxy is getting between OE and the
wrapper utility (OE-Quotefix).