Move pagefile to faster drive ?

[Unknown]

He swears by and uses registry cleaners. The registry cleaners screw up his
brains also.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:54:44 AM , and on a
whim, Twayne pounded out on the keyboard:

That shows exactly what over snipping can do:

Windows will create its own pagefile even if you set it to OFF. It
starts out large enough to hold mini dumps if that's what you're set
for; Full dumps if you're set that way. So, windows does not/will not
run without a pagefile, because it creates one where it needs it, rather
than crash.

I ran XP for a couple years without a swap file (prior to video
editing). I never saw any swap file "created".


Terry R.

 

[db]

then turn off your virtual
memory.

then run defrag.

then let us know your
results.

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[dennis]

then turn off your virtual
memory.

then run defrag.

then let us know your
results.

You know a lot, even though you said yourself that you haven't read a
single paper on anything related to CPU/OS/memory management architecture.

 

[dennis]

You know a lot, even though you said yourself that you haven't read a
single paper on anything related to CPU/OS/memory management architecture.

A note about that from the Microsoft Performance Team:

http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/12/14/what-is-the-page-file-for-anyway.aspx

"... Then modify the page file settings on the server so that there is
no page file defined. Reboot the server for the change to take effect
and then defragment the disk as you normally would. Once the
defragmentation process is completed, reconfigure the page file to the
appropriate static size ..."

 

[db]

well, the question is not whether or not
"I" know a lot.

the question is can you run your windows
defrag "without" a page file.

it's that simple.

perhaps, it is a rhetorical question since
those who supposedly know a lot also know
that you can't run a program like defrag
without a virtual memory.

therefore, your argument albeit polite and
professional is simply theoretical.

further, we are not talking about servers
here. moreover I haven't read any white
papers on the subject but there are plenty
of kb's that I have read on the subject.

I provided one of them to you as a
courtesy.

the issue at hand is clear and re-itterated
in the subject line.

remember, part of being a professional
is to be understanding.

therefore, I think you will understand
that I will move on and consider this
subject closed.

the issue is not really worth a discussion
but if it helped you in any way, then it
was worth it for me to stick around.

good luck....

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com

"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[dennis]

good luck....

Thank you.

 

[Bennett Marco]

You know a lot, even though you said yourself that you haven't read a
single paper on anything related to CPU/OS/memory management architecture.

"db" talks a lot. There's a difference.

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:49:00 -0400:

He's right. Go and find some of them yourself; you have the info, now
go and do your own verification.

Don't expect others to do your research for you.

He is wrong! Photo Shop works just fine without a paging file. So does
everything else I have thrown at Windows XP without a paging file. My
experience is that you must have 200MB of RAM or more always available
without a page file. Otherwise you can get into trouble with low memory.

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:54:44 -0400:

That shows exactly what over snipping can do:

Windows will create its own pagefile even if you set it to OFF. It
starts out large enough to hold mini dumps if that's what you're set
for; Full dumps if you're set that way. So, windows does not/will not
run without a pagefile, because it creates one where it needs it,
rather than crash.

For starters, I have never seen Windows XP create a swapfile if you have
it turned off. I have seen Windows 2000 do so, but it isn't the normal
swapfile, but a temporary file in some other folder. I forget the name
of the temp file right now and it is only 20MB in size.

Secondly, you can easily crash Windows without a pagefile. I've done it
many times experimenting with different RAM amounts. As when you get
less than 200MB of RAM free, clicking on any items starts to slow down
greatly. Meaning there is a greater and greater delay before something
happens. And if you don't free up some memory soon, the whole computer
will freeze up and not even CTRL-ALT-DEL will work anymore.

Although if you always have 200MB or more of RAM free, I don't see any
side effects of *not* having a pagefile at all. And for Windows XP, I
rarely ever use more than 800MB of the RAM. For Windows 2000, rarely
over 450MB of the RAM. So 1GB or more for XP usually does well for me
without a pagefile. I am using 2GB of RAM nowadays so I don't even have
to keep an eye out for it. Even when using a RAMDisk and EWF uses up
512MB worth of it. <grin>

 

[BillW50]

In db typed on Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:01:02 -0500:

well, the question is not whether or not
"I" know a lot.

the question is can you run your windows
defrag "without" a page file.

it's that simple.

perhaps, it is a rhetorical question since
those who supposedly know a lot also know
that you can't run a program like defrag
without a virtual memory...

But you *can* defrag without virtual memory and have the pagefile set to
zero. I have experimented for many years without a pagefile and the only
rule I know of that I must follow is to always have more than about
200MB of the RAM free to operate well without a swapfile. If you follow
this rule, you should have no problems at all. Once you get down to
150MB to 100MB free, Windows starts to get unstable and very slow. And
it won't last long in this state and just freeze right up.

 

[BillW50]

In Twayne typed on Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:46:04 -0400:

Nonsense. 1, you cannot run XP without a pagefile, even if you turn it
off. There will still be one created for you.

I only have seen this under Windows 2000, but never for Windows XP. As
XP you can turn it off and XP never complains, unlike Windows 2000.

2. 200 M or more free doesn't help much when it's a Gig of data you
have to push out there; in which case windows will still save you by
extending the pf farther, but will annoy you with messages about doing
so. 3. You obviously don't do any serious RAM-instensive work
periodically.

I have ran out of RAM before many times while experimenting and so I
know. Clicking on anything results in slow and sluggish performance when
your free RAM gets about 150MB or lower.

Windows will just "fix it" for you rather than crash, which would be
the alternative. The pf not being used most of the time is great!
And should always be the target. Thus, the pf will occupy only a Meg
or so of disck space - unless you're dumb enough to give it a set
size and waste that space 100% of the time.

Turning the pagefile off and Windows XP will *not* fix it for you,
period! I know, I have done this for years and Windows will not help you
one bit if you turn it off. But it will run without problems until the
free RAM gets 150MB or less. Once it gets low, it gets very sluggish. If
you don't act very quickly in most cases, XP will freeze right up
without any hope of unlocking it.

See above. Same response. I have 1.5 Gig, and DO need a pagefile for
when I'm working with images and video. Especially with video, the pg
can become very large, filled with buffer after buffer of still needed
but not now data.

Remember what I said. First I said most and if you never drop less than
200MB free of RAM, no swapfile works perfectly. I have years and years
of experience dealing with this.

You're talking about a new fledgling industry of which you obviously
know very little or you wouldn't have picked that as the major "issue"
at this point in time. As a past designer with SSD design experince,
the only real longevity problem is alpha migration - and eventually
SSD drives will achieve that too. You're not talking about PROMs
with their finite number of write cycles here; it's an entirely
different tachnology.

You are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. SSD come in
two types, SLC and MLC. SLC lasts 100,000 or more writes, while MLC only
last for 5,000 to 10,000 writes. And yes, SSD and flash memory is a take
off of older EPROM and EEPROM technology. Although the last I heard,
they only last for 10,000 writes and writes at a very much slower speed.
Not useful at all to use as drives.

So you've been attempting to redirect this post to other purposes you
can troll better with, but it doesn't change the facts. You're simply
working to overcome your own feeling of being powerless here, IMO.

Not so! You are the one making claims that there isn't any data to
support it whatsoever! And I use XP on a number of computers for years
without a swapfile and I know very well how XP works in this state. And
you are wrong because...