Page File size

[Nothinman]

disable it...

/thread

Disable this thread, yes, disable the pagefile, no.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: MrChad
Let Windows manage it.

Don't let windows manage it.

Just set it to a large fix size, that way you don't have windows resizing the page file every ten minutes.

 

[Nothinman]

Just set it to a large fix size, that way you don't have windows resizing the page file every ten minutes.

Wow, you've done your research on the topic, eh? Windows doesn't resize the pagefile often, the only time it expands it is when the current size is near capacity and the only time it shrinks it is on reboot.

 

[imported_DarkPhantom36]

Yeah, but wouldn't it ideally be better to just set it to a large fixed size, large enough that you don't have to really worry about windows expanding it? Because expanding it would use system resources and generally, when you need to expand the page file, you're not going to exactly have an abundance of system resources.

 

[Nothinman]

Yeah, but wouldn't it ideally be better to just set it to a large fixed size, large enough that you don't have to really worry about windows expanding it? Because expanding it would use system resources and generally, when you need to expand the page file, you're not going to exactly have an abundance of system resources.

No because if you're at the point that Windows has to expand the pagefile you're already screwed and the extra time spent doing that won't be noticable in the paging storm that you're already in. Setting a static size just sets an artificial limit for no good reason, would you rather have your app run slowly for a while or crash?

 

[imported_DarkPhantom36]

Thats why todays systems have been needing more and more RAM, so you don't have to access swap space as much. You should make the page file initially larger than what you need it to be, so that you don't have to resize it, which causes it to fragment. Just because you are screwed doesn't mean that you should screw yourself more.

And the only way that you can be certain your page file won't cause you to run out of virtual memory is by making the page file have infinite size, but Windows sets a limit of 2gb of virtual memory per application by default and 2gb in general, so you could still run out of virtual memory.

 

[Nothinman]

Just because you are screwed doesn't mean that you should screw yourself more.

Which is worse having the application run slowly for a bit or crash completely? You can't answer that for everyone.

but Windows sets a limit of 2gb of virtual memory per application by default and 2gb in general, so you could still run out of virtual memory.

It's not a Windows limitation (for the most part) but if the application needs more than 2G of VM then it'll most likely crash no matter what you do so your pagefile settings can only change the timing of the crash.

 

[imported_DarkPhantom36]

No matter what you do, your system will crash if you need too much virtual memory. It's just a matter of determining how much you need and setting the page file to a fixed size in order to account for that.

 

[Nothinman]

No matter what you do, your system will crash if you need too much virtual memory.

Not true, as long as the apps is coded right it'll fail gracefully and even then just that 1 app will die, not the whole system.

It's just a matter of determining how much you need and setting the page file to a fixed size in order to account for that.

Or taking the simpler, smarter route and just letting NT manage it on it's own.

 

[imported_DarkPhantom36]

Last time I checked, assuming that an app is coded right is a very bad idea.

And if you have two page files, one in the root directory, and one on a second hard disk and partition, letting Windows dynamically manage the size is not a bad idea because it won't get as fragmented, but otherwise, it's a bad idea.

 

[Nothinman]

Last time I checked, assuming that an app is coded right is a very bad idea.

Duh, but worst case is still that the app crashes and not the OS. Although Windows doesn't have anything like Linux's OOM killer so it'll probably take longer and be more painful.

And if you have two page files, one in the root directory, and one on a second hard disk and partition, letting Windows dynamically manage the size is not a bad idea because it won't get as fragmented, but otherwise, it's a bad idea.

Everyone keeps saying that but no one can produce numbers to show that it's a bad idea. If it's so obviously better it should be easy to produce some benchmarks to prove that, right?