1. You are viewing our forum as a guest. For full access please Register. WindowsBBS.com is completely free, paid for by advertisers and donations.

Pageing File

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by ken545, 2005/04/14.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 2005/04/14
    ken545

    ken545 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/02/25
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello,

    Just upgraded a friends computer, a Dell Deminsion 2200 from 128 MB to 384 MB of memory. It is running Win Xp Home with Celeron 1.3 processor. I remember in the old days of win 95, the basic rule was to double or 2 and 1/2 the amount of memory for the swapfile. Is this still true on the newer systems. I went and adjusted the pageing file to 768 for both the low and high end. This machine is really flying now, real happy with the outcome, but still curious about the paging file size.

    Thanks,
    Ken :)
     
    ken545,
    #1
  2. 2005/04/14
    Arie

    Arie Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/27
    Messages:
    15,174
    Likes Received:
    412
    Yep, 2 1/2 x is "standard" on WinNT architecture ;)
     
    Arie,
    #2


  3. to hide this advert.

  4. 2005/04/14
    ken545

    ken545 Inactive Thread Starter

    Joined:
    2002/02/25
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Arie,

    Ken :)
     
    ken545,
    #3
  5. 2005/04/14
    WhitPhil

    WhitPhil Inactive

    Joined:
    2002/01/07
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well, to politely argue, the number bandied by MS is 1.5 AND (believe it or not) a MAX of 3.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308417/

    But, if you read http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=314482
    it states that XP defaults to 1.5, which is true, but it doesn't mention the MAX, which with a Windows managed file, is all the free space on the drive.

    I still believe that the best setting is to allow Windows to manage it, and that if you do change the settings, that a max is not specified, otherwise you will potentially run into Windows/program errors if they run out of swapfile space.

    A PC configured with 512+ of ram, is using so little of the pagefile that you will get little performance benefit by tweaking it. (unless you run very large apps, in which case more ram would be more effective)
     
    WhitPhil,
    #4
  6. 2005/04/15
    PeteC

    PeteC SuperGeek Staff

    Joined:
    2002/05/10
    Messages:
    28,896
    Likes Received:
    389
    PeteC,
    #5
  7. 2005/04/15
    Admin.

    Admin. Administrator Administrator Staff

    Joined:
    2001/12/30
    Messages:
    6,687
    Likes Received:
    107
    :eek: Yep, that's what you get when you try to do stuff from memory...

    1.5 is what I should have said.
     
    Admin.,
    #6
  8. 2005/04/15
    Christer

    Christer Geek Member Staff

    Joined:
    2002/12/17
    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes Received:
    74
    In WinME, it is possible to set a minimum size to prevent shrinking of the swapfile below the value that the user "knows" (through monitoring and experience) he/she is going to need but to leave the upper limit blank. This would correspond to a "Windows managed with a low limit" swapfile.

    Leaving the upper limit blank in WinXP is, as far as I know, not possible. The upper limit must be specified at the same value as the lower or a higher value (or setting it to Windows Managed).

    Optimizing the swapfile/pagefile was my "pet project" when I started learning about the computer innards. The only thing I accomplished was to find out the lower limit before the OS squealed like a pig ...... :D ...... ! On WinXP with 256 MB RAM, the default setting of 384-768 MB for the pagefile was not enough when working in PowerPoint and a Photo Editing Program simultaneously. When I added another stick of 256 MB to make it 512 MB, the pagefile was set to 768-1536 MB and I haven't had a problem since then. (In both cases the pagefile was set by the WinXP installer to 1.5-3.0 x RAM.)

    Christer
     
    Christer,
    #7
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...