"ideal" paging file size

  • Thread starter Thread starter David Candy
  • Start date Start date
D

David Candy

Whatever it needs to be. Your current size is only too much if you need the space to store files. Having said that mine is a lot smaller. In other words as long as it is big enough for your use of a computer. If it's bigger it doesn't matter.
 
Hi all,

I recently upgrade memory to 1.26GB (1GB + 256MB), and wondering if I should
also adjust the amount of Windows paging file size.

I have done some searches on the net and read some different articles
related to the subject but seems can't find a definite conclusion.

The current setting is: 1279 MB which sounds a bit of too much - based on
some articles.

I use "System Managed Size" and select "Let Windows determine what is the
best for the computer".

I use Adobe Photoshop and other image applications once a while, doing some
web pages, and office applications, and not-so-advanced PC games.

Some people say using 1.5X of physical memory is not good for larger amount
of physical memory (e.g. 1GB).

So, kindly advise for the "optimal performance" and thanks in advance.
 
xfile said:
Hi all,

I recently upgrade memory to 1.26GB (1GB + 256MB), and wondering if I should
also adjust the amount of Windows paging file size.

1280MB

No.

I have done some searches on the net and read some different articles
related to the subject but seems can't find a definite conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's your first clue that its not static but related to the testers
PC configuration, 3rd party software, and open applications.
The current setting is: 1279 MB which sounds a bit of too much - based on
some articles.
Click to expand...

Do you RAM math again.
I use "System Managed Size" and select "Let Windows determine what is the
best for the computer".
Click to expand...

Makes sense.
I use Adobe Photoshop and other image applications once a while, doing some
web pages, and office applications, and not-so-advanced PC games.

Some people say using 1.5X of physical memory is not good for larger amount
of physical memory (e.g. 1GB).
Click to expand...

Yep, and did you refer to the clue provided earlier?
So, kindly advise for the "optimal performance" and thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Leave it alone.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the speedy reply. Sounds cool.

But I read from others who claimed too much of paging file size will
actually decrease the performance since it is slower than using the physical
memory.

Obviously, my attempt is hoping to gain the optimal performance by
increasing the amount of physical memory. In any case, I am not sure if the
current setting is "optimal" or not.

Thanks and appreciate if there are other comments as well.

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
Whatever it needs to be. Your current size is only too much if you need the
space to store files. Having said that mine is a lot smaller. In other words
as long as it is big enough for your use of a computer. If it's bigger it
doesn't matter.
 
You have far too much memory. It was just a waste of money. The swap file usage is based on programs memory use not the size of the swap file.

How do you know when your swap is too small - you try to start a program and nothing happens.

Windows is self tuning.

While I think your swap is too big, it doesn't matter. You should be able to open 100s of large programs. With 512MB I can open 33 major applications without a swap. That's more than I own. No swap is slower than a swap because it forces memory management to act stupid by swapping recently used code rather than unused data. The swap file is only used by data that might change. Exe files are also swapped to as their code segments don't change so windows will reread code segments from the exe.
 
If you have pro type

wmic process get name,maximumworkingsetsize

This is the maximun memory each process will use. It is calculated continuously by windows. Programs can set it (as Office does) if the programmers know more than windows.

Understand that a lot of swap is in memory. Things are swapped to memory, then to disk.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
"David Candy" <.> wrote in message You have far too much memory. It was just a waste of money. The swap file usage is based on programs memory use not the size of the swap file.

How do you know when your swap is too small - you try to start a program and nothing happens.

Windows is self tuning.

While I think your swap is too big, it doesn't matter. You should be able to open 100s of large programs. With 512MB I can open 33 major applications without a swap. That's more than I own. No swap is slower than a swap because it forces memory management to act stupid by swapping recently used code rather than unused data. The swap file is only used by data that might change. Exe files are also swapped to as their code segments don't change so windows will reread code segments from the exe.
 
xfile said:
Hi all,

I recently upgrade memory to 1.26GB (1GB + 256MB), and wondering if I should
also adjust the amount of Windows paging file size.

I have done some searches on the net and read some different articles
related to the subject but seems can't find a definite conclusion.

The current setting is: 1279 MB which sounds a bit of too much - based on
some articles.

I use "System Managed Size" and select "Let Windows determine what is the
best for the computer".

I use Adobe Photoshop and other image applications once a while, doing some
web pages, and office applications, and not-so-advanced PC games.

Some people say using 1.5X of physical memory is not good for larger amount
of physical memory (e.g. 1GB).

So, kindly advise for the "optimal performance" and thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

In general the more memory you have the less need there is for the page
file. Of course this depends on the programs you run. See this article
about virtual memory and how to set the page file from the late Alex
Nichol, MVP: http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Setting it too high doesn't cause problems, just the waste of the extra
space.
 
You are the first I have seen that says; "You have far too much memory. It
was just a waste of money".


Bob Eyster



"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
You have far too much memory. It was just a waste of money. The swap file
usage is based on programs memory use not the size of the swap file.

How do you know when your swap is too small - you try to start a program and
nothing happens.

Windows is self tuning.

While I think your swap is too big, it doesn't matter. You should be able to
open 100s of large programs. With 512MB I can open 33 major applications
without a swap. That's more than I own. No swap is slower than a swap
because it forces memory management to act stupid by swapping recently used
code rather than unused data. The swap file is only used by data that might
change. Exe files are also swapped to as their code segments don't change so
windows will reread code segments from the exe.
 
Bob said:
You are the first I have seen that says; "You have far too much
memory. It was just a waste of money".
Click to expand...


I've never used exactly that language, but I've often pointed out here that
how much RAM you need depends on what apps you run, and more memory than you
need to keep your apps from using the page file is a waste of money.

*Most* people don't need 1.25GB of RAM, but the OP uses Photoshop and it's
possible that he may be making good use of his memory.
 
Dear all,

Thank you very much for the kind inputs, and I have learned so many about
the usage of memory.

The initial reason to upgrade the physical memory from 512MB to 1GB
(although I kept one 256MB )is due to the recent use of image applications
(such as Adobe Photoshop) at the same time when using several other
applications, such as office, FP 2003, Outlook, and so on, and the system is
a bit of too slow when I switched back and forth between different
applications.

I read through both the suggested articles and all of your suggestions, so I
guess the current action for me is to - keep it intact. What I can do is to
"monitor" and "record" the usage of the page file and see if I need further
adjustment.

In addition, I guess Windows will always use physical memory first and will
not use page file unless it has to - correct me if I was wrong. So the
assumption of using a larger paging file size will result in a slower
performance is another fallacy.

I have one additional question for which I will post to the hardware group
as well (since it's more hardware-related), but would appreciate if anyone
could also advise:

Any adverse effects for mixing DRAM with different speed? The new DRAM is a
400MHZ 1GB and the old one is 333MHZ 256MB. I just wish to make the best
use of everything so I decided to keep one of the 333MHZ 256MB along with
the new 400MHZ 1GB.

Many thanks for all the kind advises from all of you.
 
On my motherboard all memory runs at the speed of the slowest. You may get more bang removing the slow stick.

99% of a program is in a memory swap file. It tries hard to avoid disk writes or reads. Even things on disk are still in memory if there is space.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodbye Web Diary
http://margokingston.typepad.com/harry_version_2/2005/12/thank_you_and_g.html#comments
=================================================
xfile said:
Dear all,

Thank you very much for the kind inputs, and I have learned so many about
the usage of memory.

The initial reason to upgrade the physical memory from 512MB to 1GB
(although I kept one 256MB )is due to the recent use of image applications
(such as Adobe Photoshop) at the same time when using several other
applications, such as office, FP 2003, Outlook, and so on, and the system is
a bit of too slow when I switched back and forth between different
applications.

I read through both the suggested articles and all of your suggestions, so I
guess the current action for me is to - keep it intact. What I can do is to
"monitor" and "record" the usage of the page file and see if I need further
adjustment.

In addition, I guess Windows will always use physical memory first and will
not use page file unless it has to - correct me if I was wrong. So the
assumption of using a larger paging file size will result in a slower
performance is another fallacy.

I have one additional question for which I will post to the hardware group
as well (since it's more hardware-related), but would appreciate if anyone
could also advise:

Any adverse effects for mixing DRAM with different speed? The new DRAM is a
400MHZ 1GB and the old one is 333MHZ 256MB. I just wish to make the best
use of everything so I decided to keep one of the 333MHZ 256MB along with
the new 400MHZ 1GB.

Many thanks for all the kind advises from all of you.
Click to expand...
 
Pull the 256MB module.

--
Jonny
xfile said:
Dear all,

Thank you very much for the kind inputs, and I have learned so many about
the usage of memory.

The initial reason to upgrade the physical memory from 512MB to 1GB
(although I kept one 256MB )is due to the recent use of image applications
(such as Adobe Photoshop) at the same time when using several other
applications, such as office, FP 2003, Outlook, and so on, and the system is
a bit of too slow when I switched back and forth between different
applications.

I read through both the suggested articles and all of your suggestions, so I
guess the current action for me is to - keep it intact. What I can do is to
"monitor" and "record" the usage of the page file and see if I need further
adjustment.

In addition, I guess Windows will always use physical memory first and will
not use page file unless it has to - correct me if I was wrong. So the
assumption of using a larger paging file size will result in a slower
performance is another fallacy.

I have one additional question for which I will post to the hardware group
as well (since it's more hardware-related), but would appreciate if anyone
could also advise:

Any adverse effects for mixing DRAM with different speed? The new DRAM is a
400MHZ 1GB and the old one is 333MHZ 256MB. I just wish to make the best
use of everything so I decided to keep one of the 333MHZ 256MB along with
the new 400MHZ 1GB.

Many thanks for all the kind advises from all of you.
Click to expand...
 
xfile said:
*Hi all,

I recently upgrade memory to 1.26GB (1GB + 256MB), and wondering if I
should
also adjust the amount of Windows paging file size.

I have done some searches on the net and read some different
articles
related to the subject but seems can't find a definite conclusion.

The current setting is: 1279 MB which sounds a bit of too much -
based on
some articles.

I use "System Managed Size" and select "Let Windows determine what is
the
best for the computer".

I use Adobe Photoshop and other image applications once a while,
doing some
web pages, and office applications, and not-so-advanced PC games.

Some people say using 1.5X of physical memory is not good for larger
amount
of physical memory (e.g. 1GB).

So, kindly advise for the "optimal performance" and thanks in
advance. *
Click to expand...

I have found that with up to 768Mb/ram the 1.5 formula is ok. Some
programs require you to have a swapfile of a specific minimum size to
work properly. With the amount of ram you have, anything above 1024Mb
would probably be a waste of disk space unless the following is true:

You run your OS/kernal in memory (Me)
You have on board shared video (Not me)
you have any other "shared resources"

If you don't do alot of multi-tasking or if you don't use alot of high
end games or apps, You can get by with a smaller one.
On a personal note, I get the best performance by placing a static
swapfile on a separate data hard drive on a separate controller on the
first partition that is 20% larger than the swapfile.

Good luck.

Dragunov
 
xfile said:
Dear all,

Thank you very much for the kind inputs, and I have learned so many
about
the usage of memory.

The initial reason to upgrade the physical memory from 512MB to 1GB
(although I kept one 256MB )is due to the recent use of image
applications
(such as Adobe Photoshop) at the same time when using several other
applications, such as office, FP 2003, Outlook, and so on, and the
system is
a bit of too slow when I switched back and forth between different
applications.

I read through both the suggested articles and all of your
suggestions, so I
guess the current action for me is to - keep it intact. What I can
do is to
"monitor" and "record" the usage of the page file and see if I need
further
adjustment.

In addition, I guess Windows will always use physical memory first
and will
not use page file unless it has to - correct me if I was wrong. So
the
assumption of using a larger paging file size will result in a
slower
performance is another fallacy.

I have one additional question for which I will post to the hardware
group
as well (since it's more hardware-related), but would appreciate if
anyone
could also advise:

Any adverse effects for mixing DRAM with different speed? The new
DRAM is a
400MHZ 1GB and the old one is 333MHZ 256MB. I just wish to make the
best
use of everything so I decided to keep one of the 333MHZ 256MB along
with
the new 400MHZ 1GB.

Many thanks for all the kind advises from all of you.


If you are using 333 with 400, both banks are going to run at 333. I
assume you know that though. I would suggest removing the 333 and run
on just the 1Gb bank and see if you get a performance increase. I
would think you would see one.

Lat'r

Dragunov
Click to expand...
 
Rock said:
You're welcome.
Click to expand...

BTW just FYI, With that much ram, you may want to open
msconfig>system.ini> Under 386enh you may want to include the following
string: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

This tells windows to use the swapfile only when it absolutely needs
to. Uou may see a reasonable performance increase.

Dragunov
 
Dragunov said:
I have found that with up to 768Mb/ram the 1.5 formula is ok.
Click to expand...


So if someone has 64MB of RAM (the official minimum for Windows XP), he
should have 96MB of page file? If your page file is that small, the computer
will hardly be able to run any applications at all. Or even with 128MB of
RAM, you think that a 192MB pagefile is adequate?

Nonsense! Formulas like these are always wrong.
 
Hi,

Thanks and did as suggested, and record the changes just in case there is
any weird things happened in the future.

Thanks again.
 
Hi,

Thanks and none of those is true in my case.

However, this is for a notebook so I guess that I could not use another hard
drive for swapping.

Thanks for the advise and I will see if it can apply to my desktop.
 
Back
Top