Question on Vista Page File

What else can RAM be used for? Besides storing application/data currently in use or caching application/data/files that are to be used for I/O-operations?

I did not say that my point of view of was scientific. I meant that your position was not as scientific as you seem to believe it to be.

Microsoft tech papers claiming that their virtual memory management technology is the best thing since sliced bread have been around since at least the time of Windows NT. However, in the field of Microsoft virtual memory management, theory and practice have shown to be two different things, resulting in re-writing the virtual memory management for every “new” version of their OS.

If I am not mistaken, the Vista service pack will introduce changes to the interaction between Superfetch and Virtual Memory Management because of the negative effects on system performance in the current version of Vista. (Readyboost is another example of technology that looks great in the tech papers but whose implementation is struggling and will also undergo changes with SP1)

The moral of the story is that Microsoft’s actual implementation of several of their key technologies (virtual memory management, Readyboost) have left things to be desired compared to their tech papers/tech specs. Therefore, Microsoft tech papers/tech specs need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

I use Photoshop 7, have used it since it came out, and not a problem with me as well, without PageFile. Neither on Windows XP, nor on Windows Vista.

 

All of my citations were on Wikipedia, not Microsoft. The general purpose and functioning of a virtual memory system, which a pagefile is only a part, is a well-researched concept. (I notice you keep referring to the pagefile as "virtual memory", and this terminology is incorrect)

I would also point out that there is a difference between something Microsoft claims is possible (like Vista can do your laundry), versus things they warn you not to do (like turn off the pagefile). One of those is clearly marketing drivel, while the other comes from the underlying technical reasons and theories behind it.

 

You may know how the page file system work but can you answer the simple question I asked ?

It seems that no one is questioning what you know about the page file system, but the conclusion you draw, i.e. no page file is a big NO NO.

 

Nothing. The processes running on the system would still be able to use 2GB of memory. The difference is that it's much easier to increase the pagefile if you need to, but at that point you really need more RAM.

You will ALWAYS need the amount of memory that you need. (And 1=1 too). The difference is that having 0 pagefile will cause processes to get killed unexpectedly, while having pagefile will allow the system to continue to run, and will also indicate to you that it's time to buy more RAM.

And no, OOM condition is NEVER acceptable.

 

How can it be easier ? The condition is set to have a fixed swap size of 1G, no auto grow. And are you saying the 1+1 case that processes won't be killed ? I cannot see how.

 

No, it will not auto grow. But you will certainly notice that your system is much slower than usual once it passes 1GB use. Instead of randomly dying processes, you will merely have a slower system.

 

I don't notice a sudden slowliness on my celeron 700/320M/1G SWAP. Definitely NOT MUCH SLOWER.

So it all boils down to:

you prefer the "notice the system's slowiness" as a way to warn you that there is a need to either grow the swap/add more RAM and I prefer OOM.

Seems to be nothing but preference and not some technical difference.

But let me push the situation one step.

On a 32 bit machine(and lets assume that Vista can only address 3.5G):

what is the difference a 3G + 1G swap system and one with 4G with no swap ? Still tells me that I am wrong to have no swap file on the 4G system ?

 

Increasing your Virtual memory will solve the problem in Windows vista like "Virtual memory Error"...Here's an article about it. If your RAM is below the recommended level you need more virtual memory.Like what happen to my laptop...I am using Windows Vista ultimate edition but my RAM is only 1.5gb. After opening many programs, I got the message "virtual memory error". Most of the times there is no error message, the windows explorer opens but I can only see the window. After I increased the virtual memory, It solves my problem...

 

And if you allowed Vista to manage the virtual memory, you would not see the error.

Gary

 

Which is why I agree in general that nothing needs to be changed for the page file setting and those who do make the change, why don't we just give them some slack that they know what they are doing ?

There really is no technical difference. Page file is still just extension to physical RAM, nothing would magically happen because the presence of it.

There is only one thing that I haven't tested. On my fixed page size setup, there is a message warning that I am 'low' in VM. I just don't know if the same thing would popup if I have no page file. It should(as VM is just RAM + pagefile) though I won't be surprised that there is different code path for different setup.

I prefer to have fixed size one as when I see this warning(or get real OOM), I know that I have to do something and get them immediately. But if I let Windows manage the page file, I can go and take a cup of coffee, read some books before the disk thrashing ends. As during this time, the whole machine is effectively not usable.

 

Your position is the equivalent of saying, "You may prefer to find out that you need some data, and go back to tape backups to get it, but I prefer to find out I lost the data and not have a backup of it." Frankly, it's idiotic, and I will no longer reply to this thread or any of your posts. If you were a sysadmin in my company, I would fire you.

 

I use a static page file. Always have, always will

EDIT: Not....I now let Vista handle it....I though it through a little more

 

We are not discussing about my position as I have said multiple times that it depends on SITUATIONS and I explained why I take my position for my particular case. And I also explained why I want another completely different position on my VPS. It all depends.

You are the one who claimed that having page file or not has actual technical difference yet failed to show it. Then go back to the "I don't like your position" then run away of no longer reply to this thread only because you failed to prove what you claim and hidding behind the excuse "I don't reply to you because you are an idiot.

From start to finish, I stick only to technical discussion and never said your preference is good or bad, only want clarification on your claim.

Admitting that one is wrong is really not that difficult. If you can prove that I am wrong(not the position part but the have a page file is really different), I would publicly apologize to you here.

No linux system has the feature of Windows' "automatically grow swap". Are you saying all those systems are not reliable and all their admin are idiots too ?

As a sysadmin, you properly size the memory need(this include a right mix of real memory and swap) then monitor it using various means. How to monitor and measure is subjected to discussion but don't think that letting process fail is terrible. Go look up erlang which is powering some real time phone switches yet is designed with the philosophy of "let the process fail when the condition is not right, or don't attempt to catch every error". Again, this philosophy doesn't work for all situation.

 

Well I've seen many articles on making the page file static. To me it makes sense, static page file = one less feature the hard drive will require to manage on the hard disk. However after reading these posts I've decided to go back to let windows manage virtual memory for a few days and I really can't say I've noticed a difference either way.

Can we list the advantages disadvantages of each so others can decide what option they would like to go with and what they can expect? There was a lot of good info in this thread but its hard to separate it from the argumentative positions

 

I have read the posts to this thread but i would like a specific question, before i have used vista 32bit and i have disabled pagefile when i installed 3gb from the stock 1gb and it ran fine, now i have 64bit vista, the ram meter goes upto ~50% from things that normally would be about 40% on 32bit, how much ram is recommended on a 3gb system that has 64bit vista.
Thanks for any replies.