eliminating the swap file

[Tracey]

I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro to
run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C: is a
FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable swap
file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with a
swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the disk
activity.

 

[Buffalo]

I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro
to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C:
is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with
a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the disk
activity.

AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the advice on
it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to your
system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make Win98SE use all
your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure don't know about Win2000Pro.
Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective rather
than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid of the Swap
file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.

 

[BillW50]

In Buffalo typed on Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:47 -0600:

I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro
to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C:
is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with
a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the
disk activity.

AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some
GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the
advice on it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to
your system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make
Win98SE use all your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure don't
know about Win2000Pro. Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective
rather than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid
of the Swap file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.

Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason to
turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives). One
reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the longevity is
linked to the number of write cycles. So write less, the longer they
last. The second reason is especially for the cheaper SSDs, is that
writes are much slower. So there are two good reasons right there.

So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000 swapfile off. It works okay if
you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000 pops up a
window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you need to click
on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and nothing happens
anyway since you have it set at zero.

After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB thrown
in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to increase the
virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot. Click on it once
and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile over 200MB and the
same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer it will take before
the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to be the best setting so
far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't complain
one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to turn the
warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

 

[Sid Elbow]

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't complain
one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to turn the
warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

XP actually gives you a "No Swap File" option in virtual memory settings
(unlike Win2K) so presumably they felt that if you deliberately selected
that option a nag window would be annoying.

 

[Buffalo]

BillW50 wrote:
[snip].

Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason to
turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives). One
reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the longevity is
linked to the number of write cycles. So write less, the longer they
last. The second reason is especially for the cheaper SSDs, is that
writes are much slower. So there are two good reasons right there.

So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000 swapfile off. It works okay
if you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000 pops
up a window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you need to
click on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and nothing
happens anyway since you have it set at zero.

After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB thrown
in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to increase the
virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot. Click on it
once and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile over 200MB and
the same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer it will take
before the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to be the best
setting so far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't
complain one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to
turn the warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

Thanks for sharing your experience.
Buffalo

 

[BillW50]

In Sid Elbow typed on Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:48:18 -0400:

XP actually gives you a "No Swap File" option in virtual memory
settings (unlike Win2K) so presumably they felt that if you
deliberately selected that option a nag window would be annoying.

Good point Sid. <grin>

 

[John John - MVP]

I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro to
run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C: is a
FAT32 partition if it matters)?

Windows 2000 does not run without a pagefile, if you try to disable the
pagefile the system will give you a nag screen and create a 20MB
temporary pagefile (temppf.sys) in the System32 folder, the file will be
deleted the next time the system boots.

You can move the pagefile to any other disk or drive but you will have
to carefully consider the move, moving the pagefile to another partition
on the same disk as Windows or on a disk that is in a slave relationship
to the Windows disk may result in a performance hit and is usually not a
good idea.

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable swap
file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with a
swap file).

What kind of applications are you running? Quite possibly the RAM isn't
being used because there is no need for it.

I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.

That is almost always a very bad idea! This is an idea that is often
advanced by well meaning individuals who unfortunately don't usually
understand the Windows NT memory management mechanism so they view the
pagefile as an evil presence. Few of them understand how the private
2GB flat address space that each process has available is mapped, they
fail to realize that without a pagefile the processes address space can
actually cause a very large amount of RAM to go completely unused and
wasted.

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John - MVP typed on Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:07:46 -0300:

Windows 2000 does not run without a pagefile, if you try to disable
the pagefile the system will give you a nag screen and create a 20MB
temporary pagefile (temppf.sys) in the System32 folder, the file will
be deleted the next time the system boots.

That could be John, I wouldn't know. All I know is creating a 20MB
pagefile and throwing into a RAMDisk seems to keep Windows 2000 happy
enough with only one nag screen at boot. Even increasing the swapfile
over 200MB doesn't change this.

You can move the pagefile to any other disk or drive but you will have
to carefully consider the move, moving the pagefile to another
partition on the same disk as Windows or on a disk that is in a slave
relationship to the Windows disk may result in a performance hit and
is usually not a good idea.

Well the believers in defragging help improves performance (I never seen
any noticeable improvements myself since IDE drives came along which
replaced MFM drives) believe keeping the pagefile off on another
partition help keeps fragmentation in better check. Thus improves
performance.

So theoretically keeping the pagefile on another partition or another
drive that shares the same data path (i.e. master and slave), and/or
plus having the head having to move far to another partition should
decrease performance.

Although Microsoft and the hardware manufactures knows about these
bottlenecks and has taken steps to prevent these problems. Thus we have
write delays and caches to solve these problems. So in the real world
with modern hardware and enough RAM, I am not sure you would ever see a
problem.

What kind of applications are you running? Quite possibly the RAM
isn't being used because there is no need for it.



That is almost always a very bad idea! This is an idea that is often
advanced by well meaning individuals who unfortunately don't usually
understand the Windows NT memory management mechanism so they view the
pagefile as an evil presence. Few of them understand how the private
2GB flat address space that each process has available is mapped, they
fail to realize that without a pagefile the processes address space
can actually cause a very large amount of RAM to go completely unused
and wasted.

John

I disagree! Running Windows XP with only 512MB or less and Windows with
256MB or less RAM without a pagefile is almost always a bad idea. And I
have experimented a lot without or with a very small pagefile on both XP
and 2000. There are three big reasons why I'm interested in running
without one.

1) I have a lot of SSD drives and the smallest is only 4GB in size. And
a swapfile eats up a lot of this space. And Asus sets the pagefile at
200MB to tame it down on a stock 4G SSD XP machine.

2) Writing a lot to a SSD decreases the longevity of the drive. So all
unnecessary writing is a bad idea. And a swapfile is one of the biggest
offenders.

3) I also sometimes use Microsoft's EWF. Which buffers all writes to an
OS drive and writes nothing to the actual drive. So write count drops to
zero! The OS doesn't care because it thinks it is all being written to
the drive (so does everything else). This is a neat idea since it is
like having a read-only Windows drive and no virus or malware can live
once the power is turned off.

The write buffer can only hold 512MB worth (I don't know if this can be
changed). Once it gets full, Windows becomes unstable and locks up.
Using it with a swapfile fills this space up very quickly and I am lucky
if I can run 20 minutes or more. Turning off the swapfile I can often
run 20 hours or more and I still haven't used up half of the 512MB.

Now back to what you were saying John. Well the real test is actually
doing it and not just talking about it. And I monitor the memory use and
I find Windows 2000/XP runs well until the free memory drops to under
200MB with a tiny or no swapfile. And I can tell you for me at least
with 2GB of RAM (even with XP), it is virtually impossible for the free
memory to drop this low.

 

[John John - MVP]

In John John - MVP typed on Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:07:46 -0300:

That could be John, I wouldn't know. All I know is creating a 20MB
pagefile and throwing into a RAMDisk seems to keep Windows 2000 happy
enough with only one nag screen at boot. Even increasing the swapfile
over 200MB doesn't change this.

Possibly that is because the pagefile is created by the Session Manager
well before the RAM disk is created (by which ever application you use
to create the RAM disk), ergo the Session Manager has no place to create
the pagefile when the system is booting, so it creates a temporary
pagefile in the System32 folder and throws up the nag screen.

Well the believers in defragging help improves performance (I never seen
any noticeable improvements myself since IDE drives came along which
replaced MFM drives) believe keeping the pagefile off on another
partition help keeps fragmentation in better check. Thus improves
performance.

So theoretically keeping the pagefile on another partition or another
drive that shares the same data path (i.e. master and slave), and/or
plus having the head having to move far to another partition should
decrease performance.

Although Microsoft and the hardware manufactures knows about these
bottlenecks and has taken steps to prevent these problems. Thus we have
write delays and caches to solve these problems. So in the real world
with modern hardware and enough RAM, I am not sure you would ever see a
problem.

In the real world a busy Windows 2000 system with a pagefile on a slaved
IDE disk will usually result in poor performance if the system needs to
page to the disk, data can only flow to one disk at a time on an IDE
controller so one disk will have to wait while read and writes are being
performed on the other one, if the system doesn't use the pagefile or if
it isn't heavily used then the performance hit may be negligible.
Nonetheless, moving the pagefile to another partition on the same disk
or to a slaved disk with the system is generally bad practice and it
should be avoided if at all possible. This article may help:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/197379/
Configuring paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows Server
2003, in Windows 2000, and in Windows NT

I disagree! Running Windows XP with only 512MB or less and Windows with
256MB or less RAM without a pagefile is almost always a bad idea. And I
have experimented a lot without or with a very small pagefile on both XP
and 2000. There are three big reasons why I'm interested in running
without one.

In your situation with tiny SSD drives there may be some advantages not
using a pagefile but for others with regular hard drives with plenty of
space there is almost never any advantages in running without a
pagefile. You should also keep in mind that the Windows XP memory
manager handles this situation differently than Windows 2000. We
sometimes hear of some who seem to experience no problems when running
without a pagefile but we also hear plenty from some who have tried it
and who have experienced problems, the pagefile hurts nothing and except
for few special exceptions removing it is almost always a very bad idea.

Read the whole article and comments here:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000422.html and you will see
that the author came to the same conclusion after running his own tests,
running without a pagefile provided no gain whatsoever and ended up
causing him problems.

John

 

[Tracey]

In Buffalo typed on Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:47 -0600:

I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000 Pro
to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to ram (C:
is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but I
just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used with
a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest if I
upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all "memory"
activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the
disk activity.

AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some
GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the
advice on it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to
your system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make
Win98SE use all your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure don't
know about Win2000Pro. Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective
rather than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid
of the Swap file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.

Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason to
turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives). One
reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the longevity is
linked to the number of write cycles. So write less, the longer they
last. The second reason is especially for the cheaper SSDs, is that
writes are much slower. So there are two good reasons right there.

So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000 swapfile off. It works okay if
you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000 pops up a
window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you need to click
on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and nothing happens
anyway since you have it set at zero.

After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB thrown
in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to increase the
virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot. Click on it once
and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile over 200MB and the
same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer it will take before
the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to be the best setting so
far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't complain
one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to turn the
warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

Thank, I'm checking out RAMDisks
Any suggestions or tips for what one (should/should not) do?
Did you use the performance monitor (or other tool) to asses the size?

After a lot of experimenting...

By that do you mean start small and work up or start big and work down?

Thanks, Tracey
Just for the record: I set the minimum paging file size to 2MB and
maximum to 2048MB.
Then I started the performance monitor to monitor memory and the page file.
The maximum page file use was about 91MB (normal???/small???/large???)
and I have seen the maximum available memory about as low as 1500MB.

 

[BillW50]

In Tracey typed on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:49:17 -0500:

In Buffalo typed on Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:47 -0600:

Tracey wrote:
I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000
Pro to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to
ram (C: is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but
I just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used
with a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest
if I upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all
"memory" activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the
disk activity.
AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some
GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the
advice on it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to
your system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make
Win98SE use all your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure
don't know about Win2000Pro. Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective
rather than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid
of the Swap file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.

Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason
to turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives).
One reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the
longevity is linked to the number of write cycles. So write less,
the longer they last. The second reason is especially for the
cheaper SSDs, is that writes are much slower. So there are two good
reasons right there. So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000
swapfile off. It works
okay if you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000
pops up a window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you
need to click on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and
nothing happens anyway since you have it set at zero.

After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB
thrown in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to
increase the virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot.
Click on it once and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile
over 200MB and the same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer
it will take before the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to
be the best setting so far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't
complain one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to
turn the warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

Thank, I'm checking out RAMDisks
Any suggestions or tips for what one (should/should not) do?
Did you use the performance monitor (or other tool) to asses the size?

After a lot of experimenting...

By that do you mean start small and work up or start big and work
down?
Thanks, Tracey
Just for the record: I set the minimum paging file size to 2MB and
maximum to 2048MB.
Then I started the performance monitor to monitor memory and the page
file. The maximum page file use was about 91MB
(normal???/small???/large???) and I have seen the maximum available
memory about as low as 1500MB.

Hi Tracey! I use gavotramdisk.zip (it's free) for a RAMDisk. And set it
up as a fixed drive (using Drive R) and that is about all of the tricks
to it. And I have found Windows 2000 is the quietest with at least with
a 20MB pagefile. So I send it to the RAMDisk and set the temps and
Internet Temporary folder to the RAMDisk as well. I use a 512MB RAMDisk,
but it doesn't need to be this high with Windows 2000. But hey with 2GB
of RAM, you don't need all of that RAM for Windows 2000 anyway. <wink>

 

[BillW50]

In Tracey typed on Fri, 14 Aug 2009 18:16:09 -0500:

... and set the temps and...
Which "temps" are you talking about (User/System/Other)?
I successfully redirected the Swap file and the Temporary Internet
Files to R: which seems to make a noticeable improvement in the run
time performance (thanks for the tip).
Please advise.
Thanks, Tracey
I have ***unsuccessfully*** tried to redirect the User Variables
(TEMP/TMP) to R: (%USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local
Settings\Temp). When I do this the MMC stops working stating that MMC
can't find/create the TEMP file. I have found that at lest 2 programs
seem to rely on the MMC: the Performance Monitor and Defrag.

User and System Variables(TEMP/TMP):
rClick on My Computer-> Properties-> Advanced-> Environmental
Settings.
FWIW I suspect that I should <NOT> redirect System Variables
(TEMP/TMP) because if Windows uses them for the update process then
they would disappear during the restart/shutdown process.

User Settings:
Temp %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local Settings\Temp
Tmp %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local Settings\Temp
System Settings:
Temp %SystemRoot%\TEMP
Tmp %SystemRoot%\TEMP

Oh I changed at:

rClick on My Computer-> Properties-> Advanced-> Environmental Settings.

All TMP and TEMP to R:\TEMP (there are four of them I believe). I also
threw the Internet temp in the R:\TEMP folder as well (although it adds
another folder inside of it). I've done this to a number of computers. I
don't know if the update process uses the temp or not. I haven't seen
any problems and I have been doing this for a year now.

 

[Tracey]

.... and set the temps and...
Which "temps" are you talking about (User/System/Other)?
I successfully redirected the Swap file and the Temporary Internet Files
to R: which seems to make a noticeable improvement in the run time
performance (thanks for the tip).
Please advise.
Thanks, Tracey
I have ***unsuccessfully*** tried to redirect the User Variables
(TEMP/TMP) to R: (%USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local Settings\Temp).
When I do this the MMC stops working stating that MMC can't find/create
the TEMP file. I have found that at lest 2 programs seem to rely on the
MMC: the Performance Monitor and Defrag.

User and System Variables(TEMP/TMP):
rClick on My Computer-> Properties-> Advanced-> Environmental Settings.

FWIW I suspect that I should <NOT> redirect System Variables (TEMP/TMP)
because if Windows uses them for the update process then they would
disappear during the restart/shutdown process.

User Settings:
Temp %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local Settings\Temp
Tmp %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Temp\Local Settings\Temp
System Settings:
Temp %SystemRoot%\TEMP
Tmp %SystemRoot%\TEMP

In Tracey typed on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 08:49:17 -0500:

In Buffalo typed on Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:45:47 -0600:
Tracey wrote:
I have a naive question: Is it possible to configure Windows 2000
Pro to run without a swap file or move/redirect the swap file to
ram (C: is a FAT32 partition if it matters)?

I only ask because the dialog box states that the minimum allowable
swap file size is 2MB (as opposed to 0MB which is what I was
thinking).

This may be a {very very} bad idea (due to functional design), but
I just thought I would ask (see issue below).

Any insight on this subject will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Tracey

I am running with 2GB of ram (which appears to be only half used
with a swap file).
I was thinking that the computer could/should run faster/fastest
if I upgraded ram to 4 GB and eliminated the swap file so all
"memory" activity would actually take place in ram.
Kind-a-like a built in ram drive... plus cut down a little on the
disk activity.
AFAIK, Win2000Pro will not be able to use 4GB of ram, only 3.? some
GB.
You would need a 64bit OS to use more.
About the swap file, I don't know, but I am going to watch for the
advice on it in replies to your post.
I know that you could add the line ConservativeSwapFileUseage=1 to
your system.ini file in Win98SE under the [386Enh] header to make
Win98SE use all your Ram before using the swap file, but I sure
don't know about Win2000Pro. Buffalo
PS: Even in Win98SE, adding that line only 'seemed' to improve the
performance in some of my games, but that was more of a subjective
rather than an objective observation. I would never totally get rid
of the Swap file, but I'm sure there are ways to limit its use.
Hi Buffalo and Tracey. For starters Buffalo, there is a good reason
to turn off the swapfile. As I have eight SSDs (solid state drives).
One reason is to limit the number of writes to a SSD. As the
longevity is linked to the number of write cycles. So write less,
the longer they last. The second reason is especially for the
cheaper SSDs, is that writes are much slower. So there are two good
reasons right there. So Tracey, yes I have turned Windows 2000
swapfile off. It works
okay if you have enough RAM (I too have 2GB). Although Windows 2000
pops up a window saying it needs to increase your swapfile. So you
need to click on OK all of the time. Which is rather annoying and
nothing happens anyway since you have it set at zero.

After a lot of experimenting, I came up with a swapfile of 20MB
thrown in a RAMDisk. As I never get the message that it needs to
increase the virtual memory (swapfile) anymore except once at boot.
Click on it once and it is gone until you reboot. I had a swapfile
over 200MB and the same thing. Although the larger it is, the longer
it will take before the one error message pops up. So 20MB seemed to
be the best setting so far. And use a RAMDisk if you would like.

I also run Windows XP without a swapfile and Windows XP doesn't
complain one bit, unlike Windows 2000. I guess Microsoft decided to
turn the warning off if you have enough RAM anyway for XP.

Thank, I'm checking out RAMDisks
Any suggestions or tips for what one (should/should not) do?
Did you use the performance monitor (or other tool) to asses the size?

After a lot of experimenting...

By that do you mean start small and work up or start big and work
down?
Thanks, Tracey
Just for the record: I set the minimum paging file size to 2MB and
maximum to 2048MB.
Then I started the performance monitor to monitor memory and the page
file. The maximum page file use was about 91MB
(normal???/small???/large???) and I have seen the maximum available
memory about as low as 1500MB.

Hi Tracey! I use gavotramdisk.zip (it's free) for a RAMDisk. And set it
up as a fixed drive (using Drive R) and that is about all of the tricks
to it. And I have found Windows 2000 is the quietest with at least with
a 20MB pagefile. So I send it to the RAMDisk and set the temps and
Internet Temporary folder to the RAMDisk as well. I use a 512MB RAMDisk,
but it doesn't need to be this high with Windows 2000. But hey with 2GB
of RAM, you don't need all of that RAM for Windows 2000 anyway. <wink>

 

[Tracey]

Although the RAMDrive is working now (my bad), I still get a dialog box
stating that the swap file needs to be bigger.

Does/Can that dialog box go away (on its own/automatically) when it
acquires the needed space or will I need to press <OK> ever time the
dialog box appears?

I set it from 96MB to 386MB in 512MB space so it has space to grow (and
it does) and so far has never run out of space.

Just for my information.
Thanks, Tracey

 

[BillW50]

In Tracey typed on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:59:31 -0500:

Although the RAMDrive is working now (my bad), I still get a dialog
box stating that the swap file needs to be bigger.

Does/Can that dialog box go away (on its own/automatically) when it
acquires the needed space or will I need to press <OK> ever time the
dialog box appears?

I set it from 96MB to 386MB in 512MB space so it has space to grow
(and it does) and so far has never run out of space.

Just for my information.
Thanks, Tracey

Hello Tracey! First of all, you don't need all of that swap space.
Windows 2000 might be using it, but I have found it doesn't need it.
Your dialog box only comes up once, right? If so, that is the best I
ever had done. As it only pops up only once per session and it should
leave you alone for the rest of the time.

I also noticed you will get more dialogs if you select something under
20MB. I also haven't noticed any benefit setting the swapfile higher
than 20MB (we have lots of RAM, in case somebody else reads this). So I
have set the max and min at 20MB. And there it stays.

I have also given lots of thought about what you said about updates
using the temp folder(s). Thus you lose everything in the RAMDisk once
the machine reboots. I haven't noticed this being a problem so far. So
do you have more information about this?

 

[BillW50]

In Tracey typed on Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:29:03 -0500:

Not yet, I ran the last Windows Update before I had knew of RAMDisk.
I'll check when/if another update is made available.
Have you run Windows Update since installing RAMDisk (Win2K)?
Thanks, Tracey
I install the OS by itself on C: and make an image of C: every time I
make {major/potentially damaging/system} changes. -- Tracey

I installed Windows 2000 by slipstreaming SP4 on a new install disc.
Then there still was lots of updates after I got Windows 2000 installed.
I don't recall when I setup the RAMDisk. Probably after everything, but
I am not sure.

I did have problems with XP and SP3 and IE8. Everything updated fine and
no errors. But it ran very slowly and I could boot faster than by
clicking on an Internet link. So I don't know if this was do to a
RAMDisk caching the temps or something else.

I too also make lots of backups. Thank goodness too. As when upgrades
fail, I need to go back. As I went back to April on this machine since
it was so slow. As I did those updates shortly afterwards. And over the
months it got worse and worse. It is nice to have a super fast machine
once again. <grin>

P.S. Windows 2000 machine is still doing very well. Tried getting MS EWF
(toggles the system drive to read only) working with Windows 2000. But I
couldn't edit the registry to make it happen (easy under XP) do to
permission levels.

 

[Tracey]

I have also given lots of thought about what you said about updates

using the temp folder(s). Thus you lose everything in the RAMDisk once
the machine reboots. I haven't noticed this being a problem so far. So
do you have more information about this?

Not yet, I ran the last Windows Update before I had knew of RAMDisk.
I'll check when/if another update is made available.
Have you run Windows Update since installing RAMDisk (Win2K)?
Thanks, Tracey
I install the OS by itself on C: and make an image of C: every time I
make {major/potentially damaging/system} changes.

 

[BillW50]

In Tracey typed on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:19:52 -0500:

I just ran the Windows Update without any issues.
I assume that RAMDrive OK for most if not all update processes.
Just FYI, Tracey

Thanks for the update Tracey.

 

[Tracey]

I just ran the Windows Update without any issues.
I assume that RAMDrive OK for most if not all update processes.
Just FYI, Tracey