Optimal XP Pro Swap File Size?
Tom
80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
Tom
R. McCarty
RAM. However, the base size needs to equal Physical RAM to do a
Full Memory dump. Actual usage varies according to what you use &
how much RAM it requires. With current PCs having 1.0 Gigabytes or
more you'll find that the Pagefile traffic is just around ~50-75 Meg with
normal use.
You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks but
it's easiest to just let Windows manage it. Some "Performance" sites
recommend turning it off but that works against the design of a Virtual
memory system.
"Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:wiXtj.328$kI4.162@trnddc05...
Colin Barnhorst
"Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:wiXtj.328$kI4.162@trnddc05...
Uncle Grumpy
> You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks but
>it's easiest to just let Windows manage it.
I set it on a different drive (not partition), larger than recommended
and with the min and max the same.
R. McCarty
has equal or better specs than the one that XP is installed on.
Setting the Min/Max prevents the pagefile from expanding if
more is needed - but that doesn't happen very often. Still for
the average user the internal management is adequate.
"Uncle Grumpy" <uncle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v5lgr3dfeehintgh4...@4ax.com...
VanguardLH
news:ewXaijXc...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> There is a general "Rule" that the Pagefile should be 1.5 times
> physical
> RAM. However, the base size needs to equal Physical RAM to do a
> Full Memory dump.
Actually the base pagefile size should be equal to the physical RAM
size plus 64KB. This limitation is superfluous if you configure
Windows to NOT save a dump, even a small one, when it crashes. This
is not related to the 64KB size for the smallest size selectable for a
crash dump logfile. I can't remember why I include this extra 64KB
but it's something that has stuck with me for years of doing QA
testing on multiple Windows platforms.
> Actual usage varies according to what you use &
> how much RAM it requires. With current PCs having 1.0 Gigabytes or
> more you'll find that the Pagefile traffic is just around ~50-75 Meg
> with
> normal use.
I use the general rule of setting pagefile space:
- For 256MB, or less, set the minimum pagefile size to 384MB.
- For more than 256MB but less than 1GB, set the minimum pagefile size
to 1.5 times the size of physical RAM.
- Above 1GB, set maximum pagefile size to 1 times the size of physical
RAM.
- These defaults may be overridden if you use an application that
wants LOTS of pagefile space. Most end-users don't run
enterprise-level applications on their workstations so this rarely is
a need.
- If there are multiple hard disks, split the pagefile across those
hard disks (at 1 times the size of the physical RAM for the pagefile
on each hard disk). The partition must obviously not be hidden for
Windows to use that pagefile. Use only one pagefile in one unhidden
partition per hard disk. This helps performance because Windows will
first attempt to use pagefiles in partition on hard disks other than
the partition in which Windows is installed to permit overlapped I/O
to those hard disks. It is possible to allocate a tiny pagefile in
the Windows partition and just use the pagefiles in the other
partitions for virtual memory but I recommend the 1x size in case you
later lose the other hard disk(s). Do not place multiple pagefiles in
different partitions on the same hard disk.
- If you enable dump file logging on a Windows crash, add 64KB to the
minimum size. Unless you are a developer debugging your own
application that crashes, the crash dump is rarely requested by
technical support (they usually don't know what to do with it). Users
don't know what to do with the dump logs. On my work host, crash
logging is enabled (complete memory dump). At home, it is disabled
(none).
Often I use a simpler algorithm: 1.5x for under 1GB of RAM, 1x for 1GB
and up, set minimum = maximum for the pagefile size, and disable crash
dump logging.
> You can move it, resize it, defrag it and all other kinds of tweaks
> but
> it's easiest to just let Windows manage it.
Actually you will want to set the minimum and maximum pagefile size to
the same value to reduce fragmentation of its file space on your hard
disk. Set min and max to the same value and reboot to use the new
values. However, to remove any defragmentation already present in the
pagefile.sys file, you will need to use a defragmenter that will touch
that file, like SysInternals' PageDefrag (free). There is another
trick of deleting the pagefile.sys file by rebooting into Recovery
Console mode, unhiding that file, renaming it to something else, and
then deleting it, and reboot back into Windows.
If you let Windows manage the pagefile size between two different
values for minimum and maximum size, the pagefile is more likely to
get defragmented. With minimum = maximum, there will probably be 2 or
3 fragments for the pagefile but it won't get worse over time.
> Some "Performance" sites
> recommend turning it off but that works against the design of a
> Virtual
> memory system.
Even if you had a terabyte of physical RAM, some pagefile space is
always used by the OS and your applications. Applications may not
function if there is no pagefile space (i.e., you have gobs of
physical memory and set max size of the pagefile to zero). Even
Windows might not run since it expects to put part of its Exec into
the pagefile (which can be reduced with a registry tweak but not
completely eliminated). Some applications know that their data
sections or some code should be pushed into the pagefile because the
performance of the application is not impacted by using the pagefile
and they don't want to consume more physical RAM than they really
need.
An application may easily ask for hundreds of megabytes of storage
(which goes through the Virtual Memory since Virtual Memory is always
in operation even if the pagefile min and max are set to zero). Most
users never see this. Include the VM Size column in the Processes tab
of Task Manager. For example, I've seen some user proclaim that a
particular anti-virus product has less memory consumption than some
other anti-virus program that they want to pan but they never bother
to check the TOTAL memory consumption by checking how much pagefile
space is consumed by their favorite anti-virus program. You might see
in Task Manager that your favorite program only consumes 10 to 20 KB
of physical memory (under the Memory Usage column) but neglect to see
that it eats up another 150MB in the pagefile. They don't realize
their favorite program is a pig on memory consumption because most of
the data and some of its code remains dormant until the active stub
needs it. I've seen security suites that include privacy protection
mechanisms, like site blocking, where the configured table of blocked
URLs and sites is data that gets loaded into the pagefile and eats up
100 to 150 MB just for that table.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders/WindowsGeneralWeb/RAMVirtualMemoryPageFileEtc.htm
http://smallvoid.com/article/windows-page-file.html
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
With 2.5GB of ram and following the baseline you would have a huge
pagefile.sys.
Ram is faster than Disk Access, you have enough ram you can start
cutting down on the swap file; you could even go without a swap file
with 2.5 Gigs memory.
I have 2.5 gigs of memory and a 300Meg swap file (pagefile.sys), I'm
just not ready to run without a swap file.
--
It was an accident
http://www.tutztutz.com/2008/02/freakiest-accidents-ever-captured/
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
>when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
>>installed?
I missread this, who'd of thought....
2GB cut down on the swap file, 512MB run about a 750MB swapfile.
Ken Blake, MVP
> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-
> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
> installed?
This is *not* the same for everyone with the same amount of RAM. The
most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed
are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more
you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)
you need to accommodate it.
Beware of advice to make it some factor of the amount of RAM you have;
that's only significant with respect to dumps, and most people have no
need of dumps.
Contrary to the usual advice, the more RAM you have, the *less* page
file you need (since the page file substitutes for RAM when you don't
have enough).
> Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
Despite everything I said above, making the page file smaller than the
Windows default accomplishes nothing but saving a small amount of disk
space. Although that used to be a valuable thing to do, in these days
of very inexpensive large disk drives, the value of doing that is
insignificant, and most people should just accept the Windows default.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Shenan Stanley
The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is
"System Managed"...
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
philo
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u26J%23RZcI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Tom wrote:
> > Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,
> > 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other
> > has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
>
> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is
> "System Managed"...
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
>
<snip>
I agree...just let Windows manage it and forget it
Ken Blake, MVP
> "Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-
> >80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
> >installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
>
> With 2.5GB of ram and following the baseline you would have a huge
> pagefile.sys.
>
> Ram is faster than Disk Access, you have enough ram you can start
> cutting down on the swap file; you could even go without a swap file
> with 2.5 Gigs memory.
>
> I have 2.5 gigs of memory and a 300Meg swap file (pagefile.sys), I'm
> just not ready to run without a swap file.
You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory
you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you
have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in
anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that
pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases
if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and
never actually gets used.
But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in
real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that
pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not
available for any other use.
jorgen
> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory
> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you
> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in
> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that
> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases
> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and
> never actually gets used.
>
> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in
> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that
> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not
> available for any other use.
Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?
R. McCarty
Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The
DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).
Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original
Windows NT OS.
Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in
C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys
"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:%23Hh6fVa...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
I just deleted my Pagefile.sys (no page file setting), and ran PerfMon
It's a lot different than last time I used it; Lots of .net settings.
But set: .NET CLR memory
"This counter displays the amount of virtual memory (in bytes)
currently committed by the Garbage Collector. (Committed memory is the
physical memory for which space has been reserved on the disk paging
file)."
Shows 0, nada
And I still get my kills in COD4 :}
--
Penn...@derrymaine.gov
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
>
>Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The
>DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).
>Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original
>Windows NT OS.
The AmigA never used a swap file, did with 10megs what it takes
windows 256megs and a swap file to do. And you just pushed the button
to turn them off, no asking the system if it was ready of not.
> Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in
>C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys
I don't find that file (TempPF.Sys) anywhere on the OS partition or
C:\ drive
>"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
>news:%23Hh6fVa...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>> You should *never* run without a page file, no matter how much memory
>>> you have. If you did so, you wouldn't be able to use all the RAM you
>>> have. That's because Windows pre-allocates page file space, in
>>> anticipation of possibly needing to use it. Although that
>>> pre-allocation speeds up page file use if it's needed, in most cases
>>> if you have enough RAM, that pre-allocated space is never needed and
>>> never actually gets used.
>>>
>>> But if there is no page file, that pre-allocation has to get made in
>>> real memory (RAM) instead. That means that the space for that
>>> pre-allocation (and it can be substantial) is tied up and not
>>> available for any other use.
>>
>> Can you point to some technical papers at microsoft to back that up?
>
--
jorgen
> Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one in
> C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys
I think that only goes for Windows 2000 and earlier
jorgen
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
>
> Virtual Memory systems has been around for a long time. The
> DEC VAX computer system ran VMS ( Virtual Memory System ).
> Some of the creators of VMS where responsible for the original
> Windows NT OS.
Virtual memory "space" is not equal the paging file. A page can be
backed up by real ram, a paging file or something else
Uncle Grumpy
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory
wikipedia is a shaky source for authoritative techy (or any other)
info.
Uncle Grumpy
>The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my opinion - is
>"System Managed"...
Then why is the alternative method offered?
Uncle Grumpy
>
><snip>
>
>I agree...just let Windows manage it and forget it
Just set it to a humongous min/max size and forget it.
Six on one, half a dozen on the other.
Just this past week I just made a NOTICABLE improvement on a friend's
sluggish notebook (she only has 212m of RAM after video use) by
setting a 1gig page file, rather than let Windows manage it for her.
Ken Blake, MVP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654, which includes the sentence
"When no page file exists, or the page file is insufficient, the
system reserves some virtual memory in the physical memory for its
paging needs."
R. McCarty
link was just so anyone interested could get a little background
info. 2nd only to "Registry Cleaners", Pagefile questions usually
startup a long running thread. With the kinds of RAM that PCs
have installed these days it's no longer a major concern.
Here's a better explanation ( MS KB article ):
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223&SD=tech
"Uncle Grumpy" <uncle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d0chr3dmt1h83h5q2...@4ax.com...
Shenan Stanley
> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,
> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other
> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my
> opinion - is "System Managed"...
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> Then why is the alternative method offered?
How is your question relevant to my given answer?
When I stated "in my opinion", that means that is what _I think_ the OP
should do, what _I think_ is the best setting/option. I did not say, "There
should be no other choice." I stated what I believed to be the best answer
for the majority of the people, the OP included given the information we
have at hand.
To answer your question - I think it is there because it was always there
and so that tweakers have something to do and perhaps - just perhaps - in
certain settings/situations one might need to change it.
Colin Barnhorst
"Uncle Grumpy" <uncle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:33chr3daelsefj79c...@4ax.com...
Colin Barnhorst
"jorgen" <na@invalid> wrote in message
news:OUUjT1ac...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Uncle Grumpy
>Tom wrote:
>> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,
>> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other
>> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
>
>Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my
>> opinion - is "System Managed"...
>
>Uncle Grumpy wrote:
>> Then why is the alternative method offered?
>
>How is your question relevant to my given answer?
WHO CARES?
I was trying to get you to expand on your pompous "in my opinion"
reply.
Uncle Grumpy
>Large data bases come to mind.
Ever hear of the advantages to NOT being a top poster?
Uncle Grumpy
Shenan Stanley
> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,
> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other
> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my
> opinion - is "System Managed"...
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> Then why is the alternative method offered?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> How is your question relevant to my given answer?
>
> When I stated "in my opinion", that means that is what _I think_
> the OP should do, what _I think_ is the best setting/option. I did
> not say, "There should be no other choice." I stated what I
> believed to be the best answer for the majority of the people, the
> OP included given the information we have at hand.
>
> To answer your question - I think it is there because it was always
> there and so that tweakers have something to do and perhaps - just
> perhaps - in certain settings/situations one might need to change
> it.
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> WHO CARES?
>
> I was trying to get you to expand on your pompous "in my opinion"
> reply.
Please - expand on why it was pompous to state my opinion?
Also note - I have included everything you chose to leave out of my reply -
although you claim to have been trying to get me to expand on my reply...
You must have cared - or you were forced to reply... ;-)
jorgen
> No, it applies post W2k as well.
>
So where is it? I don't have any temppf on my xp, as i can see. The
article also says it "may" be created. I'm guessing it is creating a
temporary one to make sure there is enough memory for the user to go in
and setup a correct configuration
Shenan Stanley
See entire conversation:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/a0982c7479aad54e/952234921ab9b600#952234921ab9b600
R. McCarty wrote:
<snipped>
> Even if you turn off the pagefile, XP will create a temporary one
> in C:\Windows\System32 as TempPF.Sys
<snipped>
jorgen wrote:
> I think that only goes for Windows 2000 and earlier
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257758
Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> No, it applies post W2k as well.
jorgen wrote:
> So where is it? I don't have any temppf on my xp, as i can see. The
> article also says it "may" be created. I'm guessing it is creating a
> temporary one to make sure there is enough memory for the user to
> go in and setup a correct configuration
No reason to 'guess". ;-)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/257758
The article in question - as you began to deduce - states:
"... a temporary paging file (Temppf.sys) may be created, and you may
receive the following error message after you log on:
Limited Virtual Memory
Your system is running without a properly sized paging file. Please use the
virtual memory option of the System applet in the Control Panel to create a
paging file, or to increase the initial size of your paging file."
If you have not seen that message, you won't have a "Temppf.sys" file...
The "More Information" part of the article explains this whole process in
better detail...
"The error message listed earlier in this article can occur when the initial
paging file size is reduced to an amount considerably smaller than the
recommended amount. Windows recognizes that the paging file size is
insufficient and creates a temporary paging file of up to 20 megabytes in
the Winnt\System32 folder. The System dialog box in Control Panel is then
displayed, forcing you to address the paging file problem.
When the free hard disk space on your computer is 30 megabytes or less,
issues can occur when you try to correct the insufficient paging file size.
The combination of the insufficient paging file size and the temporary
paging file size can easily use all of the available free hard disk space.
This does not leave enough free space to create a paging file large enough
to eliminate the need for the temporary paging file.
The only way to free the disk space that is used by the temporary paging
file is to create an appropriately-sized paging file. When it is no longer
needed, the temporary paging file is deleted the next time you start your
computer, and the disk space is then freed."
Uncle Grumpy
>Uncle Grumpy wrote:
>> WHO CARES?
>>
>> I was trying to get you to expand on your pompous "in my opinion"
>> reply.
>
>Please - expand on why it was pompous to state my opinion?
It's "pompous" (and I am guilty of posting pompous IMO replies) when
you don't tell folks WHY you hold such an opinion.
It's as if you expect them to come back and query the "oracle".
Shenan Stanley
> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro,
> 70GB- 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other
> has 2GB RAM installed? Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> The proper setting for Virtual Memory in Windows XP - in my
> opinion - is "System Managed"...
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> Then why is the alternative method offered?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> How is your question relevant to my given answer?
>
> When I stated "in my opinion", that means that is what _I think_
> the OP should do, what _I think_ is the best setting/option. I did
> not say, "There should be no other choice." I stated what I
> believed to be the best answer for the majority of the people, the
> OP included given the information we have at hand.
>
> To answer your question - I think it is there because it was always
> there and so that tweakers have something to do and perhaps - just
> perhaps - in certain settings/situations one might need to change
> it.
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> WHO CARES?
>
> I was trying to get you to expand on your pompous "in my opinion"
> reply.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Please - expand on why it was pompous to state my opinion?
>
> Also note - I have included everything you chose to leave out of my
> reply - although you claim to have been trying to get me to expand
> on my reply... You must have cared - or you were forced to reply...
> ;-)
Uncle Grumpy wrote:
> It's "pompous" (and I am guilty of posting pompous IMO replies) when
> you don't tell folks WHY you hold such an opinion.
>
> It's as if you expect them to come back and query the "oracle".
If I had stated, "The best setting is, without a doubt, System Managed." <-
that would be pompous. I stated that what I was saying was merely my
opinion. I didn't expect a return answer, I was just stating *my opinion*
on the matter at hand which has been discussed extensively in the thread
already. I saw no need to heighten the discussion which pretty well covered
the different possibilities...
See entire conversation:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/a0982c7479aad54e/952234921ab9b600#952234921ab9b600
The OP asked, "Should XP determine the swap file size?" and I answered by
giving my opinion. If the OP had asked, "Should XP determine the swap file
size and why?", I would have given more.
If you consider my answer pompous - well - I guess that is *your opinion*.
Tom
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:oougr3djekamsv7u3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-
>> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
>> installed?
>
>
> most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed
> are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more
> you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)
> you need to accommodate it.
> Windows default accomplishes nothing but saving a small amount of disk
> space. Although that used to be a valuable thing to do, in these days
> of very inexpensive large disk drives, the value of doing that is
> insignificant, and most people should just accept the Windows default.
I typically keep thirty IE6 windows open, excel w/at least one 500k
spreadsheet, Outlook, maybe Word, maybe SmarTerm.
Tom
Tom
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:oougr3djekamsv7u3...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:13:48 GMT, "Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-
>> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
>> installed?
>
>
> This is *not* the same for everyone with the same amount of RAM. The
> most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed
> are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more
> you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)
> you need to accommodate it.
>
> that's only significant with respect to dumps, and most people have no
> need of dumps.
At least temporarily I need to open a 5GB file occasionally until we can get
the file sixe reduced.
olfart
"Tom" <ya...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:67huj.24122$s33.115@trndny06...
18-30
31-50
50-75
over 75
etc
Karl Snooks
I write this because I too was once and for many years truly just as much a
smart alec as you. I made others angry, brought dislike and disdain upon
myself needlessly. In my case, a traumatic and dramatic event helped me to
rejoin and become a friend rather than a fighting foe of the human race. By
sticking to the facts and avoiding expressing opinions (as I'm now doing),
you will make your glide through life and the life of others much more
pleasant. This is my one and only message addressed to you on this matter.
I will not become involved in a diatribe.
Sincerely written from a once "Grumpy Uncle",
karl snooks
"Uncle Grumpy" <uncle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gcehr35bqeh3ic0ej...@4ax.com...
Tom
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:oougr3djekamsv7u3...@4ax.com...
>
>> Hi, what is the recommended swap file size for PCs running XP pro, 70GB-
>> 80GB HDD, when one PC has 512MB RAM installed and the other has 2GB RAM
>> installed?
>
>
> most significant criteria for determining the page file size needed
> are what apps you run, and how much you run simultaneously. The more
> you have running, the more total virtual memory (RAM plus page file)
> you need to accommodate it.
>
> Beware of advice to make it some factor of the amount of RAM you have;
> that's only significant with respect to dumps, and most people have no
> need of dumps.
>
> file you need (since the page file substitutes for RAM when you don't
> have enough).
>
>
>> Shoud XP determine the swap file size?
>
>
> Windows default accomplishes nothing but saving a small amount of disk
> space. Although that used to be a valuable thing to do, in these days
> of very inexpensive large disk drives, the value of doing that is
> insignificant, and most people should just accept the Windows default.
>
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
I keep a lot open eg, 40+ web pages, excel spreadsheet(s), SmarTerm session,
word doc(s) and even need to open, at times, a 5GB file which I'm reducing
in size. I do remeber from WFWGRPS that making the swap too large wasn't a
good idea because it'll cause the HDD drive spend a lot of time searching,
but that was the era of slow HDDs.