Page File size won't change

[PaulFXH]

Hi
After upgrading my RAM to 1 GB recently, I found that page file usage
never (I mean NEVER) went over 20 MB.
However, I had over 1500 MB allocated as maximum page file size
available (spread over both HDs) which seemed excessive in view of the
current very low PF usage.
So I tried to reduce it by 50% through My Computer>Properties. However,
although the values I input were accepted (initial and maximum values
in the custom size category), the page file size REMAINS at the
"recommended" value of 1534 MB which is 1.5 times the RAM size.
Please note that I did click the Custom Size radio button and the Set
button on the Virtual Memory page.
Can anybody suggest any reason for this reluctance on the part of the
PF size to reduce?

TIA
Paul

Dell 4550 Desktop
WinXP Home SP2
CPU P4, 2.53 GHz
1.0 GB RAM
Int HD 80 GB ntfs, non-partitioned
Ext HD 160 GB ntfs, non-partitioned

 

[jmatt]

Can anybody suggest any reason for this reluctance on the part of the PF size to reduce?

Double check your proceedure.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;307886

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi
After upgrading my RAM to 1 GB recently, I found that page file usage
never (I mean NEVER) went over 20 MB.
However, I had over 1500 MB allocated as maximum page file size
available (spread over both HDs) which seemed excessive in view of the
current very low PF usage.
So I tried to reduce it by 50% through My Computer>Properties. However,
although the values I input were accepted (initial and maximum values
in the custom size category), the page file size REMAINS at the
"recommended" value of 1534 MB which is 1.5 times the RAM size.
Please note that I did click the Custom Size radio button and the Set
button on the Virtual Memory page.
Can anybody suggest any reason for this reluctance on the part of the
PF size to reduce?

Are you by any chance running NAV 2004 with Autoprotect on during
system boot? If so, there is a known problem with this Autoprotect
setting in NAV2004 that prevents resizing the pagefile (& also moves
it on every reboot). I do not think it exists with earlier versions of
NAV though.


To disable the Auto-Protect advanced option, perform the steps
provided below:

1. Start Norton AntiVirus (NAV).
2. Click on Options.
3. Double click on Auto-Protect under System.
4. Click on Advanced.
5. Under 'How to increase Windows start up protection' uncheck 'Load
Auto-Protect during system boot'.
6. Click on OK.
7. Restart the computer and check whether the issue persists.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[PaulFXH]

(e-mail address removed) escreveu:

Double check your proceedure.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;307886

Thanks for the link.
I did check the procedure, thoroughly, but the PF size stll won't go
below 1.5 times the RAM size (although a No Page File option is
available).
It seems therefore that the only way to get the PF size below the
rigidly recommended 1.5 times the RAM size is to eliminate the PF
altogether.

Paul

 

[PaulFXH]

Ron Martell escreveu:

Are you by any chance running NAV 2004 with Autoprotect on during
system boot? If so, there is a known problem with this Autoprotect
setting in NAV2004 that prevents resizing the pagefile (& also moves
it on every reboot). I do not think it exists with earlier versions of
NAV though.

Hi Ron
Thanks for your reply.
Actually, I have no Norton or Symantec stuff whatsoever on my computer
so this cannot be the reason.
However, the impression I get from the MS article below is that the
recommended page file size of 1.5 times the RAM size should be the
minimum INITIAL size and it seems that going below this is not
allowable (although this is more implied than explicitly stated).

Change the size of the virtual memory paging file
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/17acdd99-1af2-4f4a-
8018-be61ee635b191033.mspx?mfr=true

If this really is the case, it leaves me with a further problem. I had
wanted to keep a small "token" page file on my system disk and the main
PF on my USB disk in an effort to prevent fragmentation of the PF.
However, if my understanding is correct, then what I wanted to do is
simply not possible as you are forced to accept a MINIMUM PF size on
the system disk of 1.5 times the RAM size.
I would welcome disagreements with these conclusions
Paul

 

[jmatt]

If this really is the case, it leaves me with a further problem. I had
wanted to keep a small "token" page file on my system disk and the main
PF on my USB disk in an effort to prevent fragmentation of the PF.
However, if my understanding is correct, then what I wanted to do is
simply not possible as you are forced to accept a MINIMUM PF size on
the system disk of 1.5 times the RAM size.

MS recommend the pagefile to be on a seperate drive to the operating
system, I just let the System manage the size.
Putting the pagefile on it's own partition even better.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314482
When you put a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does
not become fragmented, and this counts as another definite advantage.
If a paging file resides on a partition that contains other data, it
may experience fragmentation as it expands to satisfy the extra virtual
memory that is required. An unfragmented paging file leads to faster
virtual memory access and to a greater chance of a dump-file capture
that is free of significant errors.

How can I optimize the Windows 2000/XP virtual memory (Pagefile)?
http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm

How to Configure Paging Files for Optimization and Recovery in Windows
XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314482

HOW TO: Set Performance Options in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=308417

HOW TO: Configure System Failure and Recovery Options in Windows
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;307973

HOW TO: Move the Paging File in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;307886

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Clear virtual memory on shutdown.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/567.mspx
http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2003/2003-02-27.htm
Avoids fragmentation of the pagefile.

Kiss the swap file goodbye
http://law.wustl.edu/computersupport/Wndwostipsand tricks.htm

23 Ways To Speed WinXP Without Defrag
http://www.techbuilder.org/recipes/59201471

PageDefrag
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pagedefrag.shtml

 

[Ron Martell]

MS recommend the pagefile to be on a seperate drive to the operating
system, I just let the System manage the size.
Putting the pagefile on it's own partition even better.
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314482

That article is totally misleading. It is only relevant to those
computers that have two or more physical hard drives installed. It is
irrelevant to any circumstance where there is only a single physical
hard drive, regardless of how many partitions it is divided into.

When you put a paging file on its own partition, the paging file does
not become fragmented, and this counts as another definite advantage.
If a paging file resides on a partition that contains other data, it
may experience fragmentation as it expands to satisfy the extra virtual
memory that is required. An unfragmented paging file leads to faster
virtual memory access and to a greater chance of a dump-file capture
that is free of significant errors.

Page file fragmentation as a performance issue is right up there with
Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy - lots of hype but no
substance. The only possible circumstance where page file
fragmentation could have a performance impact is when memory pages are
being reloaded into RAM that were originally all paged out at the same
time, and where only those pages being reloaded were paged out at that
time.. The probability of this happening is extremely low.

How can I optimize the Windows 2000/XP virtual memory (Pagefile)?
http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm

That page is not bad in many places but.....

"Have the initial size be at least 1.5 times bigger than the amount of
physical RAM. Do NOT make the Pagefile smaller than the amount of
physical RAM you've got installed on your system. "

Why? 6gb of pagefile on a machine with 4gb of RAM? Ludicrous unless
you need to capture a complete memory dump and the average user will
encounter a need for this approximately once every 1,000,000,000,000
years.


For some factual information about Windows XP memory management and
pagefile settings see the article by the late Alex Nichol MVP at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

Kiss the swap file goodbye
http://law.wustl.edu/computersupport/Wndwostipsand tricks.htm

That item is totally bonkers and should be disregarded completely.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[PaulFXH]

That article is totally misleading. It is only relevant to those
computers that have two or more physical hard drives installed. It is
irrelevant to any circumstance where there is only a single physical
hard drive, regardless of how many partitions it is divided into.

Page file fragmentation as a performance issue is right up there with
Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy - lots of hype but no
substance. The only possible circumstance where page file
fragmentation could have a performance impact is when memory pages are
being reloaded into RAM that were originally all paged out at the same
time, and where only those pages being reloaded were paged out at that
time.. The probability of this happening is extremely low.


That page is not bad in many places but.....

"Have the initial size be at least 1.5 times bigger than the amount of
physical RAM. Do NOT make the Pagefile smaller than the amount of
physical RAM you've got installed on your system. "

Why? 6gb of pagefile on a machine with 4gb of RAM? Ludicrous unless
you need to capture a complete memory dump and the average user will
encounter a need for this approximately once every 1,000,000,000,000
years.


For some factual information about Windows XP memory management and
pagefile settings see the article by the late Alex Nichol MVP at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


That item is totally bonkers and should be disregarded completely.

Hi Ron
Thanks for your assessment of the various theories and treatises on the
subject of virtual memory.
My problem is not so much one of understanding the issues involved as
an inability to actually change the Page File size to LESS THAN 1.5
times the RAM size..
Yesterday, for other reasons, I clean-reinstalled my OS after which the
computer became considerably more responsive and should have been very
much less prone to unexpected strange behaviour.
But, guess what, I still cannot get the PF size to go below the 1534MB
cited as the recommended value.
This is despite the fact that the 2-50MB (Initial and Maximum) I have
specified for the C:\ drive and the 250-750 MB for the G:\ drive remain
engraved in stone in the input box for Virtual Memory.
At the botton of this box, however, it clearly states that the
currently allocated PF size is 1534 MB.
Go figure
Paul

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi Ron
Thanks for your assessment of the various theories and treatises on the
subject of virtual memory.
My problem is not so much one of understanding the issues involved as
an inability to actually change the Page File size to LESS THAN 1.5
times the RAM size..
Yesterday, for other reasons, I clean-reinstalled my OS after which the
computer became considerably more responsive and should have been very
much less prone to unexpected strange behaviour.
But, guess what, I still cannot get the PF size to go below the 1534MB
cited as the recommended value.
This is despite the fact that the 2-50MB (Initial and Maximum) I have
specified for the C:\ drive and the 250-750 MB for the G:\ drive remain
engraved in stone in the input box for Virtual Memory.
At the botton of this box, however, it clearly states that the
currently allocated PF size is 1534 MB.
Go figure
Paul

Are you by any chance running NAV 2004 with Autoprotect on during
system boot? If so, there is a known problem with this Autoprotect
setting in NAV2004 that prevents resizing the pagefile (& also moves
it on every reboot). I do not think it exists with earlier versions of
NAV though.


To disable the Auto-Protect advanced option, perform the steps
provided below:

1. Start Norton AntiVirus (NAV).
2. Click on Options.
3. Double click on Auto-Protect under System.
4. Click on Advanced.
5. Under 'How to increase Windows start up protection' uncheck 'Load
Auto-Protect during system boot'.
6. Click on OK.
7. Restart the computer and check whether the issue persists.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[PaulFXH]

Are you by any chance running NAV 2004 with Autoprotect on during
system boot? If so, there is a known problem with this Autoprotect
setting in NAV2004 that prevents resizing the pagefile (& also moves
it on every reboot). I do not think it exists with earlier versions of
NAV though.


To disable the Auto-Protect advanced option, perform the steps
provided below:

1. Start Norton AntiVirus (NAV).
2. Click on Options.
3. Double click on Auto-Protect under System.
4. Click on Advanced.
5. Under 'How to increase Windows start up protection' uncheck 'Load
Auto-Protect during system boot'.
6. Click on OK.
7. Restart the computer and check whether the issue persists.

Hi Ron
I already discounted the NAV possibility earlier in this thread (see
posts 3 & 5).

Actually, my Page File situation seems even stranger than I had
thought. I have now found that I just cannot, under any circumstances,
change the PF size from the recommended 1534 MB. So, whether I increase
or decrease the size, on one or on two drives, the "currently
allocated" figure just won't move from 1534 MB.

While this peculiarity might have encouraged an explanation invoking a
registry irregularity before, now that I have just clean-reinstalled
the OS, this really seems a very remote possibility.

However, am I really the only one ever to have been inflicted with this
strange, and apparently inexplicable, PF behaviour?
Paul

 

[Ron Martell]

Hi Ron
I already discounted the NAV possibility earlier in this thread (see
posts 3 & 5).

Sorry for asking the same question twice. I was looking at the
newgroup with the view set to show only unread messages and missed the
fact that I had asked the same question earlier.

In Windows Explorer check the properties of c:\pagefile.sys and see if
it has been set to "read only". That might explain this behavior and
because you have 1 gb of RAM you might possibly have avoided the other
more serious consequences of having this attribute set.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[PaulFXH]

Sorry for asking the same question twice. I was looking at the
newgroup with the view set to show only unread messages and missed the
fact that I had asked the same question earlier.

In Windows Explorer check the properties of c:\pagefile.sys and see if
it has been set to "read only". That might explain this behavior and
because you have 1 gb of RAM you might possibly have avoided the other
more serious consequences of having this attribute set.

Thanks for your reply Ron.
I ran a check for PAGEFILE.SYS and, interestingly, this file DOES NOT
exist on my computer; either on the present C:\ drive or on the drive
to where I had copied it prior to the clean-install.
I know that this file should be generated when I modify (or try to
modify) the size of the page file.
Could this be a clue to my problem?
Paul

 

[jmatt]

I ran a check for PAGEFILE.SYS and, interestingly, this file DOES NOT
exist on my computer; either on the present C:\ drive or on the drive
to where I had copied it prior to the clean-install.
I know that this file should be generated when I modify (or try to
modify) the size of the page file.
Could this be a clue to my problem?

The paging file (Pagefile.sys) is a hidden operating system file. If
you modify the NTFS permissions on a volume in Windows, the System
account may be inadvertently removed from the partition. If this
occurs, the System account cannot manage some system resources such as
the paging file.

By default, the Everyone group has Full Control permissions on an NTFS
volume. This permission might have been removed to provide additional
security. Individual accounts, such as the Administrator account, may
have been added. However, the Everyone group includes the System
account. Removing the Everyone group without adding the System account
as an individual account renders the paging file unusable.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315270

 

[PaulFXH]

The paging file (Pagefile.sys) is a hidden operating system file. If
you modify the NTFS permissions on a volume in Windows, the System
account may be inadvertently removed from the partition. If this
occurs, the System account cannot manage some system resources such as
the paging file.

By default, the Everyone group has Full Control permissions on an NTFS
volume. This permission might have been removed to provide additional
security. Individual accounts, such as the Administrator account, may
have been added. However, the Everyone group includes the System
account. Removing the Everyone group without adding the System account
as an individual account renders the paging file unusable.

Thanks to everybody for your suggestions and help so far.
Well, I seem to have stumbled across a partial (at least) explanation
for what's going on.
Most importantly, it seems that, on my computer at least, the Intial PF
size MUST be set well above the stated minimum size of 2MB in order to
avoid the PF selecting the default value of 1.5*RAM
Indeed, Alex Nichol had suggested setting the C:drive MINIMUM at 2MB if
it is intended to put the PF principally on a drive other than the
system disk.(as I have done).
But, for me, any value in the C: drive Initial PF size box of less than
20 MB causes the allocated PF to be set to 1.5*RAM after reboot (1534
MB in my case)
I have no explanation for this although I am really not going to lose a
lot of sleep over it.

Also, I have finally found the pagefile.sys file which seems to have
been there all along.(note that I ALWAYS had the Folder Options>Views
settings appropriate for seeing hidden system files) At least, its
creation date is given as July 4, 2006 which is the day I did the
clean-install.
However, even though it is present, it just won't show up when I do an
Explorer search for it. Now, this might cause me some restless nights.

Best wishes
Paul .

 

[jmatt]

PaulFXH wrote:

"I have finally found the pagefile.sys file which seems to have been
there all along"
Thought it must be, or you would have been getting an error message.

"Explorer search for it"
Mine dos'nt either Paul.

All of these do, refer screenshots for settings. You may have to do a
left click on each image to get it to a good image.
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/8717/200607090917087oa.gif
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/2212/200607090934291qy.gif
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3348/200607090936353am.gif

Regex File Searcher
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Regex-File-Searcher.shtml
http://softwarebybrian.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=2

XP Search replacement > Find.zip
http://www.shellfront.org/utils/

Instant File Name Search
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/File-Management/Instant-File-Name-Search.shtml

 

[PaulFXH]

PaulFXH wrote:

"I have finally found the pagefile.sys file which seems to have been
there all along"
Thought it must be, or you would have been getting an error message.

"Explorer search for it"
Mine dos'nt either Paul.

Hi
That's interesting. I was unaware that some files are "super-hidden"
such that allowing hidden files to be shown still doesn't make them
visible to the Search engine.
Thanks for the links. I haven't yet tried any of them. But if ever I do
need them (which is very unlikely to be soon) I'll know where to get
them.
Best wishes
Paul