Paging File Size

I operate WindowsXP (Home) on a 1.4 gHz P-4 PC with 256MB of RAM and a 40GB hard drive. I have my paging file set at 384 MB. I read that for optimum disk use, to set the paging file about 384 MB on a PC like mine, rather than let Windows XP pick the size.

Supposedly, the fixed paging file size avoids it becoming fragmented. I am having no problems with this setting, but when I monitor its size, the paging file is always about 20MB. It would seem that I am merely wasting disk space, although I have plenty. My 40GB drive is using only 10GB or so.

Do you have a recommendation for me?

 

Hi Don, Evidently you set the maximum size of the swap file but failed to set the minimum size. With that, it can still become fragmented because as you have seen, it changes in size with your demand on it. To stop that, set the maximum and minimum to the same value.

Personally, I prefer to let Windows manage that, it does a pretty good job and I have failed to improve on it in my many attempts.

I also think you are a little high on your user selected size unless you are doing some extremely demanding graphics work or the likes.

That's just my opinion. I have seen many discussions on this subject and usually the Windows managed people won out.

BTW, fragmentation of the swap file isn't really a big issue sinc it gets hosed and recreated with each boot.

 

Zephyr:

I did set both minimum and maximum for my paging file to 384MB. What size should I have chosen?

Also, you mention the "swapfile." I am aware that "swapfile" is the term used in Windows98 and earlier. WindowsXP calls it a "paging file." I am not fussing at you, but asking, what is the difference? Are they identical?

 

You did it correctly, I just assumed that since the file was smaller than you had set it, that you neglected to set the minimum to correspond with the maximum. You may also know that the "paging" file will be on the c:\root if you are in User Controlled mode. Perhaps you were looking at the one in the Windows directory, although it shouldn't even exist any more, given your settings. A little strange. Do a file search and see if you have two swap files. If so, try deleting the one on the root. If it won't let you, that'll mean it's being used and the system is in User Controlled mode. Then go delete the other one in the Windows directory, since it won't be in use. And vice versa if you are in Windows controlled mode, if you know what I mean.

Yes, the terms mean the same thing, I.E., the virtual memory cache, the swap file, and the paging file are all the same critter. Some call it the "Left Handed Ram"

The whole point of the people giving the advice to encourage you to set User Controlled paging is to create a FIXED size paging file but yours seems to be dynamic in spite of you setting it otherwise. (Curiouser and Curiouser, per Alice)

 

Dear Zephyr:

Duh. I can see that I have misused the terminology and failed to state my real question. With my pagefile set to 384MB min and max, examination of PAGEFILE.SYS in the root shows it is indeed 384MB.

I have several utilities; however, that show pagefile USAGE, a different matter. That is what I was referring to. Again, duh, sorry. Pagefile usage is always about 26MB, but when I am on the internet rises to around 68MB.

Should I therefore change my pagefile min and max size to some lesser number, say 128MB? Does it matter, since I have about 25GB of free harddrive space I will not likely ever fill up?

 

Now we're cooking.

We're both on the same page now or is that "Paging ".

Since you have those nice utilities that can tell you how much data you have been swapping while performing your normal duties, I would suggest adding a factor of 25% to that and use that for the Min/Max size of the fixed swap file. E.G., 68 meg X 1.25 = 85 megs, so I'd just bump it up to 100 megs and call it a wrap.

Just keep that setting in mind in case you ever happen to get some new software or change your modus operandi and the demand on the RAM is increased to the point it needs more paging room. Your monitoring utility will tip you off of course, check it now and then, especially immediately after you reset the values.

The old rule of thumb that based selecting a fixed swap file size based solely on your installed RAM is not a valid method these days since the installed RAM has far exceeded anything that was imaginable when that rule was useful.


Thanks for the feedback

Edit, Also please consider this, if you ever get to the point where you're swapping more than 100 megs, rather than increasing the swap file size, you would benefit greatly by adding more RAM so as to reduce the swapping. When you compare the speed of the hard drive swapping versus the RAM speed, it's not much of a contest.

 

Zephyr:

OK, buddy, will do. Thanks for the advice. By the way, I am not a rookie, but am an engineer in the aerospace industry. Even so, some of the arcane settings in Windows still baffle me. They surely aren't intuitive!

 

Even with the min/max set the same, you will get some pagefile fragmentation. Also to be considered are the various registry hives.

You might want to go to www.sysinternals.com and pick up a copy of their free page file defrag program. You can run it to see what shape you are in, set it to run at next boot, or set it to run at every boot. Great program. I've used it from NT4 days and it works great.

BTW - they have a number of good utilities and many of them are free.

 

Whoa Newt!

You just knocked me off my perch of complacency. I'll allow that you are likely better versed than I am so perhaps I can learn from you.

I have always been of the opinion that if a swap file was set with the same min/max, it would not change size and consequently couldn't get fragmented, assuming it was initially created just following a complete drive defrag. That also presupposes that the old swap file was set to 0min/0max prior to doing that initial defrag. I thought that would allow the user controlled swap file to then be set to a useful value and it would be placed at the end on the other data and in an unfragmented location.

Furthermore, I have also figured that if the swap file was set to be controlled by Windows. if wouldn't make much difference if you defragged it or not since it would be destroyed and recreated with each reboot (presumably in a different location). Then also, attempting to defrag a dynamic swap file seems like trying to chase down a whirlwind. I know Windows ignores the swap file during its defrag procedure for that reason. If you actually had some software that could defrag the swap file, it wouldn't appear to do much good since as soon as you finished, Windows would probably change the size of it based on demand and wipe out all your efforts.

In your opinion, does any of this have validity?

Your opinions have caused me to wonder if there is something I need to know about this that is escaping me.

I would appreciate any help you can lend me.

Best regards