*Sigh* Thank you XP, for proving me wrong

Well, looks like I should've kept my mouth shut on a couple of threads here.

I've been experimenting with getting Age of Conan to run better on my aging desktop (with 1GB RAM), and what do you know?
Reducing the pagefile size from 3 to 1GB actually made a big difference. A lot less harddrive thrashing now, and far more stable framerates.

I still stand by what I've said, that in a sane OS, a bigger pagefile shouldn't in any way hinder performance, but apparently, XP isn't so sane... I haven't tested with Vista (because I don't have Vista installed), but I'd hope it behaves better with large pagefiles. I also don't know what the situation is on 64-bit systems. (I might test that soon, since I'm going to have to format soon in any case)

One thing I want to test as soon as possible, is what happens when I let Windows manage the pagefile. With any luck, that gives me similar performance to what I get with the 1GB pagefile.

If so, the advice for the future must be "Let XP manage it. Anything else sucks. Even for experts"

Anyway, thought you guys should know.
Apparently, Windows XP is too dumb to do the right thing, and treat the pagefile as a safety net that's used when you run out of RAM. It really wants to fill the damn thing up as much as possible at all time.

I'll keep this thread updated when I get to experiment more with this.

I don't suppose anyone know if there are any registry hacks or such to change Windows' paging policy? (How eager it is to write unused data to the pagefile)
The way it currently runs makes sense in some cases (Like if the load level varies a lot), but it's not optimal for heavy gaming (at least not on obsolete systems, where the load is constantly going to be high )

 

hehe. join us. you know you want to run without a pagefile. it won't hurt, i promise.

that being said, i am also wondering- can XP can be forced to page only when ram is maxed out? i have searched for an answer to this question, but have only found the ineffective "conservativepagefileusage=1" system.ini tweak. tried it and it didn't really do anything...

maybe it's conservativeswapfileusage=1, whatever it is, i don't think it works in XP!

 

so...should I just run without page files?...?...? I definitely have enough ram for XP...

 

Er, no thanks. I prefer a reliable system as well as a responsive one. Configuring Windows with absurd settings is not really a viable solution.

Just to be clear, that'd actually be a terrible strategy. However, it would be interesting if it wasn't quite as eager to page while there's still free RAM.

No. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
There's really no point in running without a pagefile. The question is how big it should be, and whether you should let Windows manage it. Conventional OS wisdom says you should let Windows manage it. Unfortunately, conventional OS wisdom also says that there's no harm in having a big pagefile. Apparently, XP thinks otherwise on the last point, at least, so we can't take conventional wisdom for granted.

So right now, I'd suggest the following for 32-bit XP: (I'd assume that both Vista and 64-bit XP handle things better)
1: Prefer to let Windows manage it (I haven't tested this yet, but I'm 99% certain it will avoid the excessive thrashing I got with a 3GB fixed pagefile)
2: Otherwise, set the pagefile only to be "big enough". 1GB should probably do for most purposes.
3: Make a big pagefile.

#3 seems to cause performance problems (in 32-bit XP). #2 means you risk crashes if you run out of virtual memory.
#1 would seem to be ideal then. I'll test that as soon as possible. Right now, I'm guessing that #1 will give you the best of both worlds. Good performance *and* avoiding the risk of crashing applications under heavy load.

However, in addition to this, there is one point worth making.
The only place I've really noticed a difference is when I run a very demanding MMORPG which is still in beta, and I run it on a system that's near the minimum reqs.

In most cases, you won't see a noticeable performance difference either way. In other words, leave things as they are. *If* you notice a lot of harddisk thrashing constantly while playing a game, you might want to experiment with your pagefile settings. But only then. If there's no constant harddisk activity, you won't gain anything from messing with your pagefile in any case.

 

absurd? may i ask you this, sweet santa... have you ever disabled your pagefile? if you tried it, you might change your tune. hell, things seemed to work better for you once you shrunk it, why not disable it altogether? i don't know why everyone is so scared of running without a pagefile. it's funny to me. less thrashing, more battery life, faster ram access for all those files normally on the much slower hard drive, what is not to like? i have had no pagefile for months and haven't run into a single problem.

although- i would probably keep a pagefile with 1 Gb of ram as you have... i've got 3 so i just disable the pesky bugger.

 

That aside, how is Age of Conan as a game? Worth checking out the beta?

 

Many people would call me an expert I guess and I must admit I know this for a looong time. Thanks for the elaborate proof though. You are most helpful in many other threads and this is also one of them.

Perhaps the sheer filesize makes XP struggling with 3GB file? I mean perhaps it is conencted to the filesystem and disk performance with huge files?

Just an idea.

Cheers,

Ivan