What's the best place for my paging file?

[Lang Murphy]

The MS article below explains in the final sentence of the summary that
"you can increase the performance of Windows, and increase free space on
the boot partition, by moving this file to a different partition."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886

I accept that this article refers to Windows XP and not Vista and this is
part of my reason for asking a question on this forum.

Furthermore, I have followed AJR's advice and found that my system runs
about 15% faster when I use Photoshop CS with an intensive operation.

I will continue to experiment with the size of the paging file to be left
on the C drive for emergency purposes.

<snip>

Thanks for the link; appreciated. Although it's been some time since I
looked at recommendations for the location of the paging file, in the past,
if I remember correctily, the recommendation was to put the paging file on
the fastest hard disk. So I wonder if that comes into play here? Does one
get a performance improvement if the system drive is faster than the "other"
drive? Dunno...

Thanks,

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

The MS article below explains in the final sentence of the summary that
"you can increase the performance of Windows, and increase free space on
the boot partition, by moving this file to a different partition."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307886

I accept that this article refers to Windows XP and not Vista and this is
part of my reason for asking a question on this forum.

Furthermore, I have followed AJR's advice and found that my system runs
about 15% faster when I use Photoshop CS with an intensive operation.

I will continue to experiment with the size of the paging file to be left
on the C drive for emergency purposes.

Stan,

Sorry... but I deleted your response to my email acct... not in the habit of
responding to stuff sent to my email acct, even though I don't post under an
assumed acct.

At any rate... thanks for the info... better to post here and share it with
the rest of the ng, methinks....

Regards,

Lang

 

[Chad Harris]

Hey Lang--hope you're doing well.

There have been a few paging file RAM threads on here lately it seems.

AYK-- a lot of XP MSKBs do apply to Vista, and they aren't in any hurry even
to update them with Vista lables reminding me a little of the goofey
byzantine Symantec KB articles, one more reason why I kicked Norton
products to the curb long ago--that and there erratic uninstalls and erratic
performance and stilted manual update requirement unless you want to wait
once a week.

I have found one thing to be true of RAM and Vista and XP. Once you have
even 1 GB of RAM, all the adjusting of RAM and Virtual memory doesn't seem
to make a difference. And although I do move my paging file to simply
another drive than the system drive because so many Windows experts have
recommended to do so, I haven't seen a lot of difference.

I do know you'll appreciate this MSKB--which does apply to Vista although
it's not labled Vista yet. I double dare you to find another MSKB on the
planet that has the very Redmondesque MSFT Researchesque title--"and all
that stuff." I do know for a fact that George W. Bush has a file labled "Al
Quaeda and all that stuff" on his desk though and Condi has a matching file
in shocking pink.

Lang let me know if you can demonstrate on any of your boxes that adjusting
Virtual RAM or moving the page file really makes a significant difference in
performance when the box has over one GB of RAM--and I expect most of yours
do. I haven't been able to demonstrate that to myself, and I've been trying
over the years.

Check out:

RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us



The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in
Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us


Two things I'm sure of:

1) There need to be more Technet and MSKB articles that have "all that
stuff" in the tiltle.
2) There needs to be a prominent building on the Redmond Campus that has a
Neon Sign in 5 foot letters on the front that says "All That Stuff".

Best,

CH

 

[Chad Harris]

From Ed Bott in Vista Inside Out:

"Should you get involved in paging file management and how?"

"If you have more than one drive, moving the paging file to a fast drive
that is not your system drive is a good idea. Using multiple paging files
that are split over two or more physical discs is an even better idea,
because your disc controller can process multiple requests to read and write
data concurrently. Don't make the mistake of creating two or more paging
files using multiple volumes on a single physical disc, however.

*If you have a single hard disc that contains C, D, and E volumes, for
example, and you split the page file over two or more of these, you may
actually make your computer run more slowly than before.* In that
configuration, the heads on the physical discs have to do more work, loading
pages from different parts of the physical disc sequentially, rather than
loading data from a single contiguous region of the hard disc.

If your are short of hard disc space, you might consider setting a smaller
inital page file size. You can use a handy script from Windows MVP Bill
James to monitor current page file usage and session peak usage. This tool
free at http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/ was written for
Windows XP but works fine for Vista."

Read more in Ed Bott's book at 747.

This is the theory, although as I said, I haven't seen much difference on a
box that has 1GB of RAM or more.

The paging file is a way to hand over more memory when programs demand it.
Windows tries to solve this by taking a snaphsot of a memory chunk and
tossing it to the HD so the demanding program can use it. The program it
borrowed from is going to demand that memory back, and when it does, a hard
page fault happens. The snapshots are virtual memory that sits in the paging
files. If your virtual memory is on the same disc as your programs, then
Windows has to strain or fly around like a chicken with its head cut off to
keep all the programs going. Bringing the snapshot into memory may force
another snap shot, and another, and so on.

If the paging file is on another disc, that doesn't have your programs,
windows can run faster if it juggles two discs at the same time--provided
you have the room.

You can use the Resource monitor to monitor how many page faults you're
getting--and if you're getting several--say a couple dozen hard faults per
second--you should consider putting paging files on two or more fast hard
drives if you have them.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/b9dca7ff-88b6-4d8b-9ca2-49cff3cd1c951033.mspx

If you disable the paging file and don't have enough RAM, your programs will
refuse to load and will crash. If you stick to the 2GB minimum, you won't
have problems. If you don't, you'll get out of memory messages, and the
programs could crash and in some of them you could lose your work.

If you have over 2GB of RAM on your box, you can consider disabling the
paging file. If not, forget it. This will cause faster memory access and
management than is physically possible for your RAM.

CH

 

[Lang Murphy]

Hey Lang--hope you're doing well.

Thanks, Chad... 2007 hasn't been a great year, health-wise (sciatica, some
dental issues) but my kid's kicking butt at automotive school, so that makes
me happy!

There have been a few paging file RAM threads on here lately it seems.

AYK-- a lot of XP MSKBs do apply to Vista, and they aren't in any hurry
even
to update them with Vista lables reminding me a little of the goofey
byzantine Symantec KB articles, one more reason why I kicked Norton
products to the curb long ago--that and there erratic uninstalls and
erratic
performance and stilted manual update requirement unless you want to wait
once a week.

Roger that on Norton/Symantec. When my Symantec AV subscription expired on
my eMachines box... went straight to Avast (by way of AVG...). Never again
will I use their AV products on my personal PC's. Not unless day turns to
night and they actually release a product that is not a pig. I went through
months of having to do manually updates on, I think, SAV 2004. It was
supposed to do automatic updates, and they didn't work, so once a week, I'd
have to go and search their site, because, of course, they didn't do a good
job of making it easy to FIND that stuff. And then, after months of doing
that... automatic updates started working again. Phooey! G'bye, and good
riddance!

I have found one thing to be true of RAM and Vista and XP. Once you have
even 1 GB of RAM, all the adjusting of RAM and Virtual memory doesn't seem
to make a difference. And although I do move my paging file to simply
another drive than the system drive because so many Windows experts have
recommended to do so, I haven't seen a lot of difference.

I do know you'll appreciate this MSKB--which does apply to Vista although
it's not labled Vista yet. I double dare you to find another MSKB on the
planet that has the very Redmondesque MSFT Researchesque title--"and all
that stuff." I do know for a fact that George W. Bush has a file labled
"Al
Quaeda and all that stuff" on his desk though and Condi has a matching
file
in shocking pink.

Oh... that's too funny... "...and all that stuff." LOL!

Lang let me know if you can demonstrate on any of your boxes that
adjusting
Virtual RAM or moving the page file really makes a significant difference
in
performance when the box has over one GB of RAM--and I expect most of
yours
do. I haven't been able to demonstrate that to myself, and I've been
trying
over the years.

I cannot demonstrate that making -any- changes to the page file makes a
difference in performance. This box has 2GB RAM. The other Vista box that I
use regularly has 1.5GB's RAM. (and both have a single hard drive... both
laptops...) The only thing I do to the page file is defrag the hd and then
make the pagefile static by making the initial size and maximum sizes the
same. I read, years ago, that that was a performance improvement move...
Does it actually improve performance? Well, I don't have any metrics to
prove it, but it does kind of make sense.

Check out:

RAM, Virtual Memory, Pagefile and all that stuff
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us



The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box in
Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/en-us


Two things I'm sure of:

1) There need to be more Technet and MSKB articles that have "all that
stuff" in the tiltle.

For real! Gotta love it!

2) There needs to be a prominent building on the Redmond Campus that has a
Neon Sign in 5 foot letters on the front that says "All That Stuff".

Concur! For real, man!

Best,

CH

Thanks for the post, Chad... as always, you make good points on the
technical side of things. Thanks, too, for the links... appreciated!

Regards,

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

From Ed Bott in Vista Inside Out:

"Should you get involved in paging file management and how?"

"If you have more than one drive, moving the paging file to a fast drive
that is not your system drive is a good idea. Using multiple paging files
that are split over two or more physical discs is an even better idea,
because your disc controller can process multiple requests to read and
write data concurrently. Don't make the mistake of creating two or more
paging files using multiple volumes on a single physical disc, however.

*If you have a single hard disc that contains C, D, and E volumes, for
example, and you split the page file over two or more of these, you may
actually make your computer run more slowly than before.* In that
configuration, the heads on the physical discs have to do more work,
loading pages from different parts of the physical disc sequentially,
rather than loading data from a single contiguous region of the hard disc.

If your are short of hard disc space, you might consider setting a smaller
inital page file size. You can use a handy script from Windows MVP Bill
James to monitor current page file usage and session peak usage. This
tool free at http://billsway.com/notes_public/WinXP_Tweaks/ was written
for Windows XP but works fine for Vista."

Read more in Ed Bott's book at 747.

This is the theory, although as I said, I haven't seen much difference on
a box that has 1GB of RAM or more.

The paging file is a way to hand over more memory when programs demand it.
Windows tries to solve this by taking a snaphsot of a memory chunk and
tossing it to the HD so the demanding program can use it. The program it
borrowed from is going to demand that memory back, and when it does, a
hard page fault happens. The snapshots are virtual memory that sits in the
paging files. If your virtual memory is on the same disc as your
programs, then Windows has to strain or fly around like a chicken with its
head cut off to keep all the programs going. Bringing the snapshot into
memory may force another snap shot, and another, and so on.

If the paging file is on another disc, that doesn't have your programs,
windows can run faster if it juggles two discs at the same time--provided
you have the room.

You can use the Resource monitor to monitor how many page faults you're
getting--and if you're getting several--say a couple dozen hard faults per
second--you should consider putting paging files on two or more fast hard
drives if you have them.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/b9dca7ff-88b6-4d8b-9ca2-49cff3cd1c951033.mspx

If you disable the paging file and don't have enough RAM, your programs
will refuse to load and will crash. If you stick to the 2GB minimum, you
won't have problems. If you don't, you'll get out of memory messages, and
the programs could crash and in some of them you could lose your work.

If you have over 2GB of RAM on your box, you can consider disabling the
paging file. If not, forget it. This will cause faster memory access and
management than is physically possible for your RAM.

CH

Chad,

Thanks for the followup... but gee... how does one split the paging file
across disks? (I have no interest in doing so, but knowing it can be done,
and knowing how to do it, are good tools to add to the toolbox. Maybe I
should say, I don't -think- I have interest in doing so... ;-) )

Thanks,

Lang

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/22/2007 10:49 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard

Chad,

Thanks for the followup... but gee... how does one split the paging file
across disks? (I have no interest in doing so, but knowing it can be done,
and knowing how to do it, are good tools to add to the toolbox. Maybe I
should say, I don't -think- I have interest in doing so... ;-) )

Thanks,

Lang

Hi Lang,

Right click My Computer, select Properties. Advanced tab, Performance
Settings button. Advanced tab, Virtual memory Change button. From
there you can set additional paging files on other drives.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[NotMe]

I have a 20GB EIDE HDD that I installed and use it for nothing except the
swap/paging file.
That may not be 'normal' but it does prevent the main drive from wasting
time reading/writing to other areas of the HDD during heavy useage.

 

[Lang Murphy]

On 7/22/2007 10:49 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard


Hi Lang,

Right click My Computer, select Properties. Advanced tab, Performance
Settings button. Advanced tab, Virtual memory Change button. From there
you can set additional paging files on other drives.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry,

Thanks! Will look into it.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

I have a 20GB EIDE HDD that I installed and use it for nothing except the
swap/paging file.
That may not be 'normal' but it does prevent the main drive from wasting
time reading/writing to other areas of the HDD during heavy useage.

<snip>

Well... as Chad Harris asked me: do we know that -any- of these
configuration changes to the paging file -really- make a difference,
performance-wise? Especially when the box has 1GB RAM or more? And I'm not
looking for "metrics." I'm just looking for "Hell, yeah, it makes a
difference!" or "Gee, you know, I'm not sure." ;-)

Lang

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/23/2007 11:33 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard

<snip>

Well... as Chad Harris asked me: do we know that -any- of these
configuration changes to the paging file -really- make a difference,
performance-wise? Especially when the box has 1GB RAM or more? And I'm not
looking for "metrics." I'm just looking for "Hell, yeah, it makes a
difference!" or "Gee, you know, I'm not sure." ;-)

Lang

If you have more than one physical hard drive, I see a difference. I
have 3 on my system with the paging files on 2 of the 3 (not the OS
drive). I can't see any benefit to a single drive with partitions
(putting the pf on a different partition), though some argue with that.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Lang Murphy]

On 7/23/2007 11:33 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard


If you have more than one physical hard drive, I see a difference. I have
3 on my system with the paging files on 2 of the 3 (not the OS drive). I
can't see any benefit to a single drive with partitions (putting the pf on
a different partition), though some argue with that.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

What kind of performance improvement do you see with your setup? Across the
board improvement with all tasks, or improvement with specific tasks? Not
being flip... just want to know.

Thanks,

Lang

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On 7/23/2007 11:33 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard

A second HD is nice to unlink head travel, but if the drive is itself
slow (especially if using CPU-hogging PIO transfers) then this may
offset some of hte benefits. It's the same sort of equation as using
flash storage (no seek, slow data rates) via ReadyBoost.

If you have more than one physical hard drive, I see a difference. I
have 3 on my system with the paging files on 2 of the 3 (not the OS
drive). I can't see any benefit to a single drive with partitions
(putting the pf on a different partition), though some argue with that.

There would be a benefit in page files on each volume of the same
physical HD only if the system was smart enough to apply "locality of
reference) awareness, i.e. stuff from E: paged to E:, etc. and if the
additional volumes held material likely to be paged a lot.

Without that, you would just increase "head hopscotch".

What is very unlikely to help under any circumstances at all, is a
single page file on the same physical HD as the OS, but on a different
volume on that HD. That forces head stretch, and will hurt.

My preference on single HD systems (i.e. most) is to concentrate head
travel within a small C: that contains pagefile, Temp and busy web
caches. Next volume will be small and crucial data, protecting this
from "engine room" mishaps, then the bulk of the material on the PC
that isn't accessed as often - music, videos, pictures, etc.

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

To one who only has a hammer,
everything looks like a nail

 

[Terry R.]

On 7/24/2007 10:49 PM On a whim, Lang Murphy pounded out on the keyboard

What kind of performance improvement do you see with your setup? Across the
board improvement with all tasks, or improvement with specific tasks? Not
being flip... just want to know.

Thanks,

Lang

When I originally configured this workstation this way, I was doing a
lot of video editing. I saw about a 10%-15% improvement in overall
performance as opposed to a single drive setup. Not only due to the
paging on separate drives, but the OS is on one drive, data is on one
drive and programs are on one drive.

That wasn't the reason I changed over to multiple drives though. It was
mainly for redundancy of partition backups across the 3 (OS's on 1 drive
with backups on drives 2 & 3, data on 2 with backup on 3, programs on 3
with backups on 1 & 2, along with external drive images). When a drive
goes down (and I've lost 4 drives over the last 3 years), I can quickly
replace it, restore what was needed and get back on my way.


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Lang Murphy]

When I originally configured this workstation this way, I was doing a lot
of video editing. I saw about a 10%-15% improvement in overall
performance as opposed to a single drive setup. Not only due to the
paging on separate drives, but the OS is on one drive, data is on one
drive and programs are on one drive.

That wasn't the reason I changed over to multiple drives though. It was
mainly for redundancy of partition backups across the 3 (OS's on 1 drive
with backups on drives 2 & 3, data on 2 with backup on 3, programs on 3
with backups on 1 & 2, along with external drive images). When a drive
goes down (and I've lost 4 drives over the last 3 years), I can quickly
replace it, restore what was needed and get back on my way.


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Terry,

Thanks for the reply... I'll look into changing the swap file location on my
XP MCE box because that's the box on which I do my (infrequent) video
editing.

Lang