Vista tweak: Size of Page File

I've followed the NBR Vista tips and tweaks guide up until #22: Reduce or Eliminate the Size of Your Disk Cache. Anyone experimented with this in depth to know how much RAM to allocate to what drive?
I currently have a Dell xps m1530: duo processor @ 2.6ghz, 4.0gb of RAM, 250gb of HD. Any insight into this matter would be greatly appreciated.

 

Let Windows manage.

 

There are countless threads/debates about the PageFile for those with ample amounts of RAM.

Bottom line, there's no conclusive evidence about which is "better" (on/off).

As to the size, you should let Windows manage it...be careful listening to anyone telling you otherwise (unless they happen to be "experts" on the issue).

Some claim that with 4GB and pagefile off, that the system is slightly snappier, but no one has ever proved this. (perhaps a placebo effect)

 

You have plenty of disk spaces, leave it to vista to manage the pagefile size, as it sees fit. And with 4gigo ram, vista will access/use it first to speed things up on its own; after all vista is being labelled "ram hog".

cheers ...

 

Mine is off. According to Tuneup 2008 its better off if you have more than 2 GB. I have 1.5 but i want it off and my Bista runs FAST!

 

I'll ask the same question I do every time this alleged "tweak" comes up... got proof? I have challenged numerous times for anyone to analytically PROVE that running without a pagefile makes Vista any quicker. The only person who ever took me up on this found that there was no improvement in speed at all. Check any one of the many other threads about this. See if you can find a single one with any measurable proof. All you will find are anecdotal claims of things like it "feels faster" or the ridiculous, "well it has less work to do so it HAS to be faster" etc. So again, I ask... got proof?

Gary

 

I live mines on. Some programs such as CS3 requires lots of memory and pagefile will supplement what RAM you already have. It's there to make your system run as it should be. I've tried to turn it off before and I honestly don't feel any difference. This is another Mythbuster busted.

 

I have mine at like 1200 MB.. not that its better or or worse.. not that its making my system faster.. Just wanted to see what it is all about... checked my mem usage and fixed this according to that.. thats all. And forgot to change it back since.. though I must say I didn't see any difference between having it at sys managed size or the custom size.

 

Keep it on. Microsoft included the page file for a reason.

Keep it on system managed like others said. FYI, I think that Vista allocates the 'system managed' by making the page file twice the amount of your physical RAM. At least that's how it did it on the one Vista computer I've played around with.

Remember that many of those tweaks are useless. The only tweaks which may be beneficial are ones that turn off Vista features which were designed for users with specific needs. Such as services that allow Vista to do certain network stuff and to automatically detect external monitors. But any tweak that doesn't seem to correspond to a specific use shouyld be avoided. In my opinion at least.

 

Have it on. Even you turn it off, there is still page file needed for the OS.
Page file is like the swapping area for placing data that is currently not used. And vista has better memory management than xp. So I would say leave it on.

 

Currently its on 1024-1024, but i just talked to my day and he said that if you let the system manage the page file size, then my drives will become fragmented faster and i'll just have to defragment them more often. So instead of wasting more time defragmenting, i'll just keep it on a fixed amount: 1024.

EDIT: i put it on 1024-1024 for the C: drive, and none for the D: drive (computer was formatted by dell, so my programs and documents are on the C: file, and windows is installed on D: )

Anything else i should change/remove?

 

Leave it on in case you get some application which swallows RAM (like opening up a lot of photos at the same time). However, 2GB is probably plenty. The rule of thumb about it being twice the size of physical RAM is a left over from a previous era (like 3 years ago when 2GB RAM was a rarity) but the RAM usage of applications hasn't increased substantially in the past 3 years.

However, I am a strong believer in a fixed size swap file, otherwise it it will tend to get fragmented if / when Windows resizes the swap file. After fixing the size of the swap file it would be prudent to defrag it. See PageDefrag, which can work under Vista. The best place for the swap file and the hibernation file is at or near the fast end of the HDD.

John

 

I set my pagefile to a fixed size so I don't have to defragment it. Using 512-512 on a 2GB system.

 

i'm running xp on a 4gb compact flash card, so a page file is a no go for me, my 2.5gb of ram suffices.

 

@jisaac: is the compact flash card the thing when you connect a USB key and configure it to add RAM to your system? is there an actual noticeable difference to performance when you do this?

Also, is it ok if i put no paging file for my D: drive?

 

I think Jisaac is just using his compact flash card as a hard disk to host Windows... Not as added RAM. Zee I think what you may be thinking of is ReadyBoost for Vista?

Also Zee, you only need to have a paging file for one drive. So just keep it system managed on C: and you'll be fine. Or if you don't like system managed set it to twice you physical RAM amount. Again, on the C: drive. Leaving no paging file on D:, unless you feel the need to do that (it likely won't make a difference).

 

yes, i am using a cf to ide adapter in my notebook.

i believe zee is referring to readyboost, and can i just confirm that it is useless. just upgrade your ram. if you want a pagefile, set it to a specific size to reduce fragmentation.

 

Let the debate begin, where is Jalf?

Windows 98 SE yea I used to set the pagefile size.

I either so disagree with both your logic or have a major lack of understanding. Why don't we have a walk thru and see if we get anywhere?

Locking the "pf" to save disk space? Sure that would work but I would remind in any modern system HDD space is not at that much of a premium as to serve a real need?

Alright John you brought up the 1 1/2 rule of thumb. And John I take issue as you do. The logic is lacking. Let me give my example. I have XP and 1GB RAM? Pagefile should 1.5GB? I have 2GB RAM pagefile 3GB? More RAM would lessen the needs on the pagefile I would think so why would you increase it's size?

OK this fragmenting? Oh my this throws me? John and Aidan you lock the size to prevent? John that 1 1/2 times RAM even if in your and my opinion outdated is exactly what NT (XP/Vista) does. It creates a pagefile that size. So it will not fragment any more than both of yours? The exception is it has the ability to expand yours doesn't and should it be needed you might be looking at a crash I won't.

Conclusions unless you want to set a larger pagefile than 1.5X your RAM to avoid fragmentation no reason to fix size other than save HDD space.

The fact that so many are reducing or eliminating all together should indicate that the Windows managed pagefile is unlikely to expand. That means fragmentation is not an issue.

It really has no downsides. I believe I have addressed the concerns and explained how and why they are misplaced. Nothing is gained and a slight potential risk can be incurred by removing or locking.

I have no delusion this will in anyway settle the matter but it is how I see it and it makes sense to me. Let me have it fella's.

 

powerpack,

By letting Windows manage the pagefile, it allows for fragmentation since it needs to decrease and increase all the time. Because I am lazy when it comes to computer maintenance, I set it at fixed 512MB and don't have to worry about it. Of course, as you have pointed out, this runs the risk of the pagefile not increasing to a size over 512MB, which runs the risk of a potential crash. So far, this has not happened to me (yet) and I'm confident that my 2GB RAM is enough to prevent such an occurence.

As for the "1.5X RAM" rule of thumb, I don't believe in it. 3GB pagefile is just way too much for me.

 

From my research as I tried to express. Windows does not keep resizing it sets a fixed size. 1 1/2 RAM set/fixed no fragmenting. It has if needed the ability to expand. If my 3GB pagefile needs to expand? Trust me your 512MB crashed and burned along time ago.

The only possible savings is disk space not fragmenting. Windows likely sets large so as to try and minimize fragmentation. I will say again, when Windows is fragmenting you are crashing?

3GB is not that high of a cost. Windows does not keep resizing as said in this and many other threads. That is erroneous it has a set size and only deviates under certain situations.