delete pagefile safe?

[Aikouka]

I have read that a page file has to be on the boot drive, but I don't know if this is really true. Seems to me that if it were true there wouldn't be an option to put a page file on non-boot disks. But there is.

I'm pretty certain that is not correct. A page file can be set on any non-removable drive on your system, but if that drive disappears, I believe the pagefile will be recreated on the system drive. I don't normally mess with it much anymore, so I'm not too sure.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The pagefile is not required on the boot partition. But you lose the ability for memory dumps if you dont have it there.

And windows wont recreate it on another drive. It will simply startup without.

 

[hal2kilo]

The pagefile is not required on the boot partition. But you lose the ability for memory dumps if you dont have it there.

Damn, that's a shame because they're soo useful.

 

[nforce4max]

Those look like Dos commands. I thought Windows shed Dos back in 95? How would I execute these from within Windows? Are certain aspects of Windows still based on executing commands in the shell?

Nope, in some form or another Dos is still around even in Windows 8. Even OSX and Android has command line features. In Server 2008 it is called powershell while for Win2k and newer I forget what it is called but it isn't the same as Dos that people remember from the win9x days. That died after win Me (ms Dos 8.0) failed.

 

[taltamir]

Windows did shed dos. It still has a terminal though where you can use command line apps.

To run the terminal you need to run the app called "cmd.exe", you can type it into run box/search box in windows start menu

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes, please share the empirical benefits of running with one, instead of without...or the other way around I don't care. Because it doesn't matter! But keep your religion (it's a metaphor BTW) out of your response as you enlighten us. I know it'll be tough, I can tell by how you've already responded.

Actually, don't respond. I'm done with this thread since again the PF is irrelevant today.

The PF is hardly irrelevant. It's a critical part of the VM subsystem, and it enhances performance. Yes, that's right, under typical loads, it actually improves performance.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I was under the impression that even if you disable the page file, Windows makes one secretly anyway.

Certain versions of Windows do that. I cannot recall exactly which editions.

 

[Gryz]

I've always found it scary to have the pagefile living inside my filesystem with my data. Unix used to force you to dedicate a separate partition just for swapspace. When I first started using Windows (Win95), I didn't trust it. And in those days, I probably didn't have enough RAM to expect to never be able to swap. So I didn't want to remove the pagefile.

Ever since I install Windows on a machine, I first create a separate partition, just for swapping. I used to make it 2x the size of the physical RAM. I see the point of having your virtual address space larger than your physical one. For emergencies. But there is no point in making it too big. Once you start swapping heavily, you're gonna lose performance in a big way anyway. So my previous system (with 4GB of RAM) had a 8GB partition, with only the pagefile on it. My current system (8GB of RAM) has a 10GB partition with a 10GB pagefile. I always set min and max to the same size. Because when paging out pages, which slows down the system, I don't want the system to start messing with the filesystem too, when it has to grow the pagefile. By having a single partition with a single pagefile that never changes size, I also hope to prevent problems with fragmentation.

After reading all this, I don't see a reason to change the way I configure my system. I realize now that I can't do crashdumps. But who here has ever analyzed a kernel crash themselves, or has Microsoft look at their crashdumps ?

 

[taltamir]

I've always found it scary to have the pagefile living inside my filesystem with my data. Unix used to force you to dedicate a separate partition just for swapspace. When I first started using Windows (Win95), I didn't trust it. And in those days, I probably didn't have enough RAM to expect to never be able to swap. So I didn't want to remove the pagefile.

I always found the idea of a swap partition to be ridiculous. It is difficult to resize and there is no technical benefit (speed/reliability/etc) to it being a partition rather then a file

 

[jimmybgood9]

Even if you have adequate RAM, the swapfile can benefit performance. Because virtual memory management is so complex, (I love saying this) it is sometimes easier for the system to swap out than to just write dirty data to file. But it doesn't have to be very big - 500MB maybe a GB is plenty.

If you don't have adequate RAM get some, because Windows really blows when it's swapping due to lack of RAM. Or maybe put the swapfile on an SSD, which MS recommends.

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, please share the empirical benefits of running with one, instead of without...or the other way around I don't care. Because it doesn't matter! But keep your religion (it's a metaphor BTW) out of your response as you enlighten us. I know it'll be tough, I can tell by how you've already responded.

Actually, don't respond. I'm done with this thread since again the PF is irrelevant today.

Uh no, you're the one telling people to run in an unsupported configuration so the burden of proof is on you.

I always found the idea of a swap partition to be ridiculous. It is difficult to resize and there is no technical benefit (speed/reliability/etc) to it being a partition rather then a file

In the past there was, at least with Linux. Older kernels (2.2 days I think) ran swap file access through the filesystem layer in addition to the block layer so there was additional overhead. But that limitation has been fixed for probably a decade now. The fact that it's still done that way is mostly a hold over from that time because people are used to it, must in the way Windows still uses drive letters by default.

After reading all this, I don't see a reason to change the way I configure my system. I realize now that I can't do crashdumps. But who here has ever analyzed a kernel crash themselves, or has Microsoft look at their crashdumps ?

I have on numerous occasions. Tools like Bluescreen View or even the dev tools from MS can really help tracking down a troublesome driver.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Uh no, you're the one telling people to run in an unsupported configuration so the burden of proof is on you.

Removing the pagefile aint an unsupported configuration. Thats just pure rubbish.

 

[groberts101]

unsupported or not.. many people do it anyways.

If the anti-tweakers in here would just reread the first question from the OP.. and ummm.. also read the name of the threads title.. it is completely safe to remove it from a stability standpoint. Aside from the few pitfalls mentioned sveral times already, of course.

Otherwise.. not many would be doing it.. and the bad news would be all over the net about the system crashes and slowdowns associated with this tweak. Which is just not the case at all.