Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Paging File Woes

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 7:21:08 PM9/12/00
to

I made the mistake of trying to tweak my paging file by allocating it across
each of my three physical hard drives. It worked just fine until I read an
article that said having a too-large paging file can actually hurt
performance.

Well, I dramatically (and stupidly, as it turns out) reduced the "initial
size" for the paging file on each of the three drives, and I have had
serious problems ever since. Here's what happens:

No matter what I do, Windows sees only 20 MB allocated to the paging file.
In other words, I can't get the "Total paging file size for all drives"
value on the Performance Options dialog to be anything but 20 MB. And no
matter which initial/maximum sizes I choose, Windows gives me an error
dialog upon boot (paging file is too small, and so on...).

I've tried putting the page file on C:\ alone, and I've tried multiple
drives. I've tried zeroing it out and rebooting, then resetting it to the
default values. Nothing works. I simply don't know what else to try. I am
using System Properties, and not the console, to make these changes (I've
read about the known bug regarding the console and page file settings).

I have 320 MB RAM. The initial size I'm trying to go with is perfectly sane
(and it's what Windows defaulted to anyway): 480 MB.

This is driving me nuts, and it's affecting my system. Any help would be
greatly appreciated!


Milo Bloom

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 7:44:09 PM9/12/00
to
If you have NTFS partitions, check the Security tab for each partition, and ensure the "SYSTEM" account has Full Control. BTW, there is no such performance hit with a "too large" paging file.

~Milo
"Scott" <sdglo...@NO-SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:utWnCARHAHA.247@cppssbbsa05...

Scott

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 9:12:28 PM9/12/00
to

A million thank-you's, Milo. That was exactly the problem. Well, I'm
humbled. :)

Thanks again! (that makes it 1,000,001).


"Milo Bloom" <wh...@mi.com> wrote in message
news:ddzv5.20663$I6.1...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...

Milo Bloom

unread,
Sep 12, 2000, 9:59:16 PM9/12/00
to
Don't be too humbled... It's a common error, and I learned about it firsthand, myself. Glad to help!

~Milo
"Scott" <sdglo...@NO-SPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:#V69P#RHAHA.196@cppssbbsa04...

Andrej Budja

unread,
Sep 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/13/00
to

On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:21:08 -0400, "Scott"
<sdglo...@NO-SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

>I made the mistake of trying to tweak my paging file by allocating it across
>each of my three physical hard drives. It worked just fine until I read an
>article that said having a too-large paging file can actually hurt
>performance.

Do you still have a link to this article?

Andrej
--
Andrej Budja, MCSE+I, MS MVP

Scott

unread,
Sep 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/13/00
to
I didn't save the link, but I will hunt it down tomorrow (Thursday, 9/14).
The article was on MS Technet. I'll find it again and post the URL.

"Andrej Budja" <andrej...@no-spam-please.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:m8jvrsgi59p646j4c...@4ax.com...


> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:21:08 -0400, "Scott"
> <sdglo...@NO-SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>

> >I made the mistake of trying to tweak my paging file by allocating it
across
> >each of my three physical hard drives. It worked just fine until I read
an
> >article that said having a too-large paging file can actually hurt
> >performance.
>

0 new messages