2GB of RAM + No pagefile = Most games don't run.

I ordered my M17 with 2GB of RAM. I told Vista to use no pagefile (where the OS uses a portion of the hard drive for 'RAM'). After that, all of my newer games like Crysis Warhead and Fallout 3 crashed while loading. I re-enabled the pagefile, and everything went back to normal. This could only mean that my system is regularly using my hard drive as RAM while I'm gaming. Hard drives are many times slower than real RAM, from what I've read. What kind of performance hit am I taking due to not having enough RAM, and my system having to dip into the much slower pagefile?

 

It's hard to tell how much of a performance hit you're taking unless you know what files Windows is throwing into the page file. If Vista were to put game data into the page file instead of the RAM, games would slow to a crawl; chances are that it is moving system data in there instead.

 

First 2gb's is not enough for no page file. Second, many applications require it even if you have enough ram. I have 4 times the ram as you and still keep a page file.

 

The page file is only used if there is not enough RAM, or if applications specifically ask to use the page file. Either way, disabling it is not a good idea...it does not surprise me that your programs are crashing.

 

My resource-hungry games, such as Crysis and Fallout 3 WILL NOT run with the pagefile disabled. That would only mean that the system was using the pagefile for my games, right?

 

or it's trying to move your background stuff to a non existent page file.

 

ive tried no page file for a while, and it worked with Fallout 3 and Crysis since you've mentioned them but.. i'm on XP and you're on Vista so...


Still, dont know why you think 2 gigs arent enough. since Crysis never jumps above 1200mb?..

 

Because vista uses ~1.3GB. What's 1.2 + 1.3? 2.5! That's higher than 2. See the problem?

 

Page file can be turned off it you have 8+GB of RAM, IMO. Otherwise, your dumb to turn it off. When gaming, Vista will load most of itself into the pagefile, giving your application preference to the real memory. For what you are trying to do, 4GB is a minimum. Essentially, with the page file off and trying to load a game, you are maxing your system resources and causing a crash.
If not having a page file is a big deal to you, you either need to have 4GB minimum or put in a good SSD and turn the page file on anyways.

It just makes no sense to turn off the page file if you are gaming. Cuz then you have to share vista And the game in the same memory space, wheras Vista could load itself into pagefile and give the game priority.

Besides, you've got two drives in RAID0, your page file should be screaming fast compared to most people.

 

I leave page file on for my MBP when I'm in Vista even though I have 4GB of RAM. 4GB is the minimum to turn off page files for Vista. I do turn it off for my desktop but then I have 8GB on that.

 

/agree ... but for Vista.

XP was more like 2GB... except when running really modern games (like GTA IV/Crysis/FarCry2/Fallout3/etc.)...

4GB would be a much better idea for XP though...

 

Unless you have GOBS of RAM (6GB +), it is a very bad idea to turn off the pagefile. Some programs utilize it specifically instead of system RAM when data is not in need of critical access. The games are not "running" off your hard drive in the sense I believe you are imagining, page file usage is more complex than simply saying it is a pure extension of memory to be used as overflow protection. Some of the pagefile usage might be used offloading idle programs to allow more space for your games, for instance.

 

You can always make an swap file only partition... it will be better and faster than have it on the system partition.

Partitions that have a large number of files usually have large MFTs... on an dedicated(with only the swap file in it) the MFT will not even be used(unless some MFT space reserved automatically by the NTFS partition table).

On and dedicated partition you can use larger cluster sizes too, for better read/write performance. 4K is the standard, but for the swap file I recomend that you use 64K clusters.

About the file system, some say that FAT32 it´s faster than NTFS for swap dedicated partitions, but if you are going to use an larger swap(>4GB) you will need to use NTFS.

 

I remember reading this before Audigy. I think it has something to do with fragmentation as well, not sure.

But if the dedicated partition for the pagefile is made on the inner tracks of the HDD, that'll cause the actuator arm to go crazy whenever the user will run out of physical memory, hence lower R/W rates - lower performance.

One doesn't really need to think about the pagefile too much, since its hardly used and should be defragged once in a while. And if one is using up their physical memory completely, quite often, he/she should invest in more RAM, considering the fact that its best to avoid using the HDD for cache, as it is 1000x slower than RAM (irrespective of whether it has a dedicated partition or is on the outermost track).

 

That is other matter... if you have your pagefile size as automatic, if a bigger pagefile is needed the OS will rise it and lower it when not needed.

That can sometimes cause the pagefile fragmentation if you have it on an partition with low free space/to much fragmented files.

If you put your pagefile on an dedicated partition, there will be no other files(unless Metadata and the MFT reserved space) that can interfere. My recomendation here is to use a manual size for better consolidation.

Thats not necessarily true.

Lets see this simples example.

You have only one partition on you disc. That means that your system partition will have the page file in it. How can you control where it is located on disc? You can´t, the OS will put the pagefile.sys where ever it wants, and it can be located on any inner track of the plates of your disc.

By making and dedicated pagefile partition, you can control approximately where the pagefile will be positioned on the plate.

That will depend on the HDD configuration(how much plates/heads and their data density).

Lets see this simple example.

You have an 200GB disc, and it has 2 plates. It has 3 heads(wich mean that one plate will only be writen/readed on one side).

So 200 / 3 = 66.(6)GB per plate.

Now, if you make one system partition with lets see, 70GB, if you make another one right beside it, you will use the other side of the first plate. So that means that you are approximately on the outer tracks of the other side. That partition will be great for put the pagefile.

 

Are you sure ? I am a noob at this actually. I don't know much about the interiors of a HDD.

The way I see and believe it, the data will actually be distributed and/or divided among the 3 platter faces. Why ? Mainly because, there is usually one Read Write (R/W) head designated per platter face, and each head is attached to a single actuator shaft which moves all heads in unison and performs a uniform synchronous motion during reading or writing of data.

I am not sure on this. I hope Chris can help.

EDIT: Dang, NBR is slow tonite.

 

I can be wrong, but lets see, if they worked like you are saying one disc with 3 plates(6 heads) will be faster than one with only 2 plates(4 heads), considering that the data density is the same on each plate. Thats not what we see...

What you are saying it´s more like RAID(considering each side of the plate one disc).

Consider it as a vinil disk. When one side is over(close to the inner tracks) you use the other side. And when that disc is over you move to the next one.

 

Mehh! I dunno.

All heads do not read/write at the same time. The multiple heads do help in random writes and to store data on multiple disks in organization. But I am not sure how a platter is actually filled.

Because if you see the HD Tune Read graph, it actually has a constant downward slope. If data is stored in the way you're describing, one would see an upward spike in the Read graph (after the first 66.5GBs you mentioned), since data will be again found on the outermost track.