I told Windows XP to not use a paging file...so why is it?

KingNothing

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2002
7,141
1
0
I have 768MB of RAM in my machine now. I went into the advanced system properties and set both my C and D drives to no paging file. I rebooted.

StatBar is reporting that I have ~546MB of RAM free, which was about the same as it reported before I turned off the paging file. Task Manager's Performance tab is saying my PF Usage (Page File, right?) is 150MB. This number fluctuates sometimes.

What gives?
 

GoHAnSoN

Senior member
Mar 21, 2001
732
0
0
XP need file page to run stable.(and 98 too, my experience...)

from what i iknow, XP is made to use file page even if u disable it.
 

NokiaDude

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2002
3,966
0
0
Because Windows needs this "cyst" no matter how much RAM you use. Remember, Windows will not use the PF as much when you have 1gb of RAM as when you have 64mb. Trust me, getting rid of the PF is just calling for trouble.
rolleye.gif
 

KingNothing

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2002
7,141
1
0
Originally posted by: NokiaDude
Because Windows needs this "cyst" no matter how much RAM you use. Remember, Windows will not use the PF as much when you have 1gb of RAM as when you have 64mb. Trust me, getting rid of the PF is just calling for trouble.
rolleye.gif

So is there no way to tell it to load everything into RAM first? Right now my PF Usage is sitting at 258 MB and I have 452MB of RAM free. It'd be nice if Windows would make use of this expensive RDRAM I just bought.
 

Booter

Member
Jun 7, 2002
198
0
0
XP need file page to run stable.(and 98 too, my experience...)

from what i iknow, XP is made to use file page even if u disable it.

i doubt that, i've set the no page file option in one of my boxes, now with 512 ram windows prompt me to turn it on when i was running sql and rendering a photo in photoshop, why did xp tell me to turn it on if it was on already ? ;) i installed another 512 and no complaints so far from xp. :)

Ps. i run photoshop, director, sql etc...ds.
 

KingNothing

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2002
7,141
1
0
Originally posted by: Booter
XP need file page to run stable.(and 98 too, my experience...)

from what i iknow, XP is made to use file page even if u disable it.

i doubt that, i've set the no page file option in one of my boxes, now with 512 ram windows prompt me to turn it on when i was running sql and rendering a photo in photoshop, why did xp tell me to turn it on if it was on already ? ;) i installed another 512 and no complaints so far from xp. :)

Ps. i run photoshop, director, sql etc...ds.

I would tend to agree with GoHanson's statement, since XP's "PF Usage" meter in the Task Manager changes even when I had the page file turned off. Perhaps "PF Usage" means something other than the obvious, though.

When you say XP told you to turn it on, do you mean XP or Photoshop? Photoshop complained that I didn't have a page file when I started it up, but it didn't do much about it.

I did find a site that said some windows xp components require a paging file even if they don't use it for its intended purpose. So I have mine turned back on for now.
 

Booter

Member
Jun 7, 2002
198
0
0
When you say XP told you to turn it on, do you mean XP or Photoshop? Photoshop complained that I didn't have a page file when I started it up, but it didn't do much about it.

XP of course. I got 1 gig ram installed and Photoshop asks me alsio to turn on the page file when i start it up, but i dont and i render big image files with diffrent filters etc...no at a singel complaint from XP. :)

My theory is that with 1gig ram windows dosen't ask or need any PageFile! its the sweet spot for Windows at least Windows XP :)
 

vash

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2001
2,510
0
0
Win2k and XP MUST use the pagefile, even if you have enough ram -- its just how it is. If you *really* want to reduce the use of the pagefile, reduce it to say, 20 megs. With a file that small and that much ram on your system, reading that 20 meg file will be very quick compared to a 150 meg file.

vash
 

KingNothing

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2002
7,141
1
0
Originally posted by: vash
Win2k and XP MUST use the pagefile, even if you have enough ram -- its just how it is. If you *really* want to reduce the use of the pagefile, reduce it to say, 20 megs. With a file that small and that much ram on your system, reading that 20 meg file will be very quick compared to a 150 meg file.

vash

Is that going to do anything though? If I change my paging file to have a minimum and maximum of 20MB, and reboot, nothing has changed except the size of pagefile.sys. Task Manager still reports 155MB "PF Usage". I want that 155MB in my expen$ive PC1066 RDRAM dammit! :p
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
So is there no way to tell it to load everything into RAM first?

It already does.

Right now my PF Usage is sitting at 258 MB and I have 452MB of RAM free. It'd be nice if Windows would make use of this expensive RDRAM I just bought.

Just because there's data in the pagefile doesn't mean the OS decided to swap stuff out, for instance some things use the pagefile as a backing store. Executables and such will never be stored in the pagefile because they already have a place on disk to be flushed if memory is needed, they'll just be re-paged in from their original file when they're needed.

My theory is that with 1gig ram windows dosen't ask or need any PageFile!

When was the last time you helped design a VM subsystem? Anyone can create theories about things they know nothing about.

I want that 155MB in my expen$ive PC1066 RDRAM dammit!

Call MS and complain, I'd be interested in what they tell you.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Try one of those 3rd party RAMDISK utilities and make it the page volume.

Please stop. Noone wants to waste a chunk of memory on a pagefile when it could be put to much better uses like file caching or running programs.
 

Booter

Member
Jun 7, 2002
198
0
0
When was the last time you helped design a VM subsystem?
I could ask you the same queston to you ;) besides i don't see what your reply has to do with my theory.
Anyone can create theories about things they know nothing about.
Speak for yourself, have you got a 1 gig ram XP box running with no page file option set? I got experiance with such a box, been running a multimedia box without a pagefile.sys for atleast 3months+. Im speaking after experiance here, what are you speaking from?? And even Microsoft says that its possible to set the no pagefile.sys option but they don't recommend it.

Here is one for you Nothinman i will quote myself here "i've set the no page file option in one of my boxes, now with 512 ram windows prompt me to turn it on when i was running sql and rendering a photo in photoshop, why did xp tell me to turn it on if it was on already ? ;) i installed another 512 and no complaints so far from xp. :) "
 

KingNothing

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2002
7,141
1
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Try one of those 3rd party RAMDISK utilities and make it the page volume.

Please stop. Noone wants to waste a chunk of memory on a pagefile when it could be put to much better uses like file caching or running programs.

I thought of doing this too, but in addition to your argument, moving the page file wouldn't seem to do anything. Turning the page file off removes pagefile.sys, but the "PF Usage" indicator continues on its merry way, which tells me that Windows is using some untweakable setting to put stuff on the hard drive.

Oh, and Booter, open up Task Manager, go to the Performance tab, and tell me what your PF Usage is. If it's 0, well, you're the man I guess because I can't get it to budge. :)
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I could ask you the same queston to you besides i don't see what your reply has to do with my theory.

I never designed one from scratch but I have researched and fiddled with the Linux VM. I'm currently reading "Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager" to get up to date on the 2.4 VM because the O'Reilly Linux Kernel book covers 2.2.

My reply was stating that your theory is bunk.

Speak for yourself, have you got a 1 gig ram XP box running with no page file option set?

I don't have an XP box. I did get a XP license with my laptop but it's running Win2K, and yes it has 1G of memory with a pagefile.

And even Microsoft says that its possible to set the no pagefile.sys option but they don't recommend it.

And XP will create a small ~20M pagefile on bootup.

Christ, I wish MS would get their terminology right. When your computer is running low on RAM and more is needed immediately, Windows uses hard drive space to simulate system RAM. This is known as virtual memory, They blatanly use the term virtual memory in places where it's in appropriate, and the pagefile doesn't simulate RAM. It would be nice if their their doc writers had some form of clue.
 

Booter

Member
Jun 7, 2002
198
0
0
KingNothing
Turning the page file off removes pagefile.sys, but the "PF Usage" indicator continues on its merry way, which tells me that Windows is using some untweakable setting to put stuff on the hard drive.

That puzzles me also beacuse when i had 512 ram and the pagefile turnend off why did i get a message saying to turn it back on? I mean If it in all secrete is using a PF (like shown in the Taskmanager) then one shouldn't get a out of memorry error right? However with 1gig i never recieved any "turn the PF back on" messages or out of memmory errors.

Oh, and Booter, open up Task Manager, go to the Performance tab, and tell me what your PF Usage is. If it's 0, well, you're the man I guess because I can't get it to budge.:)
Im not in front of it right now but i've checked before and it does show a PF usage like you say and it does fluctuate sometimes 150mb and sometimes 250 something.

But like you said before "Perhaps "PF Usage" means something other than the obvious, though." I'm thinking that it does mean something else...why? well if you have done a search for the PF when PF usage is high according to the taskmanager then why isn't there one? Surely if windows anyway made use of one (even if you have turned it off) then the file must be on the harddisk right?... but it's not.

 

Booter

Member
Jun 7, 2002
198
0
0
Nothinman
never designed one from scratch but I have researched and fiddled with the Linux VM. I'm currently reading "Understanding the Linux Virtual Memory Manager" to get up to date on the 2.4 VM because the O'Reilly Linux Kernel book covers 2.2.

Linux and Windows are two diffrent operating systems.

My reply was stating that your theory is bunk.
Right..Well nothing you have said have proved my theory bunk so far.

I don't have an XP box. I did get a XP license with my laptop but it's running Win2K, and yes it has 1G of memory with a pagefile

Why not try the XP license that you already got? Things might clear up then.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Linux and Windows are two diffrent operating systems.

Yes, but Virtual Memory is pretty universal, there are implementation details but the only major difference is the tuning of how/when it pages to disk which also consequently is the most difficult thing to get right.

Right..Well nothing you have said have proved my theory bunk so far.

No but you yourself said but i've checked before and it does show a PF usage like you say and it does fluctuate sometimes 150mb and sometimes 250 something. . What else could PF usage be?

Why not try the XP license that you already got? Things might clear up then.

There's nothing to clear up. I had XP on it for a week or so and didn't like it. I only have Windows on it at all because of a few video processing apps and games I use once in a while, once I find Linux replacements or wine gets better I won't have Windows on it at all.