PF Size - Optimum for 1GB ? and two partition requirements?

craige4u

Member
Dec 19, 2005
132
0
0
Hi guys,

Me having 9800XT 256MB Graphics, 1GB Ram and I need opinions about the optimum Page file settings.

I know that the rule of the thumb is x1.5(Minimum) & x3(Maximum) the total RAM.
Hence, currently the PF is set to, 1536 Min. & 3072 Max.

Can anybody put some light if my settings are correct and that if I need to tweak it for a little better performance.

Also,, I am having Two partitions on my HD,

C Drive: for Windows files only + software ( MS Office, Acrobet, Nero etc. )
D Drive: for rest all the stuff ( Games, Music etc )

Do I need to set PF for the drive D ?

Can also explain how to read tht ?Task Manager? ? Under performance there are values explaining the Physical memory and commit charge, enabling to read this can lead to better understanding for the optimum settings on my PC.

NOTE: I am not facing any kind of system instability, just wondering if a little tweak can improve some overall performance, even by a little bit!
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Please, please do a search.

This is possibly one of the most well covered topics on the forum. You should be able to find a major thread once every couple weeks that will have your answer.

The very short answer: If Windows XP, let the OS handle it. Any gains from tweaking will be negligible at best.
 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: craige4u
Can anybody also put some light for Page File on "Drive D" and if thats necessary ?

It's not necessary. In fact, in plenty of situations, it will cause performance degredation and remove available features.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:

If only they made enough money to hire some decent programmers. :(
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:



When you have a page file expand and contract all the time(as the windows one does) it will cause your harddrive to become fragmented. Setting a static size(having = minimum and maximum page file size) allows you to maintain performance, while simultaneously eliminating any fragmentation caused by the pagefile.

This seems to be the only forum I have visited where the general concensus is to let Microsoft handle it.

And just some advice, there are over 120,000 people on this forum who try to increase their computer knowledge by communicating with others who are relatively knowledgable in the field of computer software and hardware. I would have no doubt that some of them are far more qualified in the various IT fields than some of the people at Microsoft.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: dguy6789
When you have a page file expand and contract all the time(as the windows one does) it will cause your harddrive to become fragmented. Setting a static size(having = minimum and maximum page file size) allows you to maintain performance, while simultaneously eliminating any fragmentation caused by the pagefile.

This seems to be the only forum I have visited where the general concensus is to let Microsoft handle it.

And just some advice, there are over 120,000 people on this forum who try to increase their computer knowledge by communicating with others who are relatively knowledgable in the field of computer software and hardware. I would have no doubt that some of them are far more qualified in the various IT fields than some of the people at Microsoft.

How much of a performance improvement would I get if I defragmented? How about if I mess with the page file?
 

scottws

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
468
0
0
Let's say you have two hard drives, with one partition on each. So basically in Windows you have hard drives labelled C: and D:. Assuming Windows is installed and operating from the C: drive, you would get better overall performance by putting the page file on D:.

A more complicated example...

You have two hard drives. Drive A has a single partition, with Windows installed and operating from it. This is the C: drive in Windows. Drive B has two partitions, drives D: and E: in Windows. Drive D: contains installers for programs you've downloaded. You rarely use them and just have them in case you reinstall Windows. Drive E: contains MP3 files, videos, and other data that you use pretty frequently. In this case, the optimal place to put the page file is on Drive E:.

If you have more than one physical hard drive, you should place the page file in the partition that gets the most use and that resides on a physical drive other than the one that contains the Windows operating system. The reason for this is that the physical drive containing Windows is working constantly doing Windows things. Page file activity on that drive would decrease the amount of time the hard drives' head is doing regular Windows activitiy. The second drive is generally not as busy, and therefore if it is working on the page file, it's not taking time away from the Windows operating system. The reason it should be in the partition that gets more use is that the hard drives' head spends more time in that area of the hard drive than in the other partition, therefore the seek time going from working on a MP3 file to the page file is less if the page file is near the MP3 than if the page file was in a whole different area of the hard drive.

It should be noted that performance gains from any tweaking of the page file will be minimal. Seek times of hard drives in particular are measured in tens of milliseconds, or even less. So generally it is not worth a big effort to get the most out of your page file. The time would be better spent installing more RAM or working to save up money for more RAM. However, if you have the time to spare, there is no real reason to not tweak the page file in such a way.
 

scottws

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
468
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How much of a performance improvement would I get if I defragmented? How about if I mess with the page file?
I see what you're saying, but why not do something that helps prevent fragmentation in the first place. Defragmenting your hard drive every once in awhile is generally a manually initiated, lengthy process.

You only have to set the size and location of your page file once.

If someone else wants to try to make their PC run as efficiently as possible, who are we to advise them against it?
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
When you have a page file expand and contract all the time(as the windows one does) it will cause your harddrive to become fragmented. Setting a static size(having = minimum and maximum page file size) allows you to maintain performance, while simultaneously eliminating any fragmentation caused by the pagefile.

The pagefile on contracts on reboots, not during runtime and it only expands when you're low on physical memory. So it's not constantly changing size like you're inferring.

This seems to be the only forum I have visited where the general concensus is to let Microsoft handle it.

I frequent the Ars forums as well as this one and the general consensus is the same there too.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: scottws
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
How much of a performance improvement would I get if I defragmented? How about if I mess with the page file?
I see what you're saying, but why not do something that helps prevent fragmentation in the first place. Defragmenting your hard drive every once in awhile is generally a manually initiated, lengthy process.

You only have to set the size and location of your page file once.

If someone else wants to try to make their PC run as efficiently as possible, who are we to advise them against it?

Ok, how about you answer this question: How much of a performance improvement will I see from making a static page file instead of effeciently letting Windows deal with it?

Or: How much of a performance loss does minimal/mid-range fragmentation cause?

Throw me some numbers! :)
 

Matthias99

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2003
8,808
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
This seems to be the only forum I have visited where the general concensus is to let Microsoft handle it.

I frequent the Ars forums as well as this one and the general consensus is the same there too.

I must say, this does seem to be the general consensus among people who actually understand how it works. Anything short of putting the swapfile on an SSD (or maybe 15KRPM SCSI) is unlikely to dramatically improve its performance -- and that only makes sense if you already have 4GB of RAM.

Unless you have a good reason to do something 'different' with it, just let Windows manage the swapfile. If you're hitting the swapfile with any sort of frequency, and you have less than 4GB of RAM, you need more RAM.
 

Smilin

Diamond Member
Mar 4, 2002
7,357
0
0
Originally posted by: dguy6789
This seems to be the only forum I have visited where the general concensus is to let Microsoft handle it.

And just some advice, there are over 120,000 people on this forum who try to increase their computer knowledge by communicating with others who are relatively knowledgable in the field of computer software and hardware. I would have no doubt that some of them are far more qualified in the various IT fields than some of the people at Microsoft.

The people here with that consesus have a solid understanding of the subject. About once a month someone comes in with a "new" idea about the topic, eventually frustrates the veterans enough that they respond and shoot the idea down. Two pages of thread bickering occur before the consensus is again reached.

So far this thread hasn't even skimmed the surface of what has been discussed about this topic. I would encourage you to do some searching on your own.

Oh, and FYI: some of the members of Anandtech ARE people at Microsoft ;)

 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:

If only they made enough money to hire some decent programmers. :(

I saw a poster from CMU's career center - 30% of CS majors who replied to a survey said they were going to Microsoft. CMU is pretty high-ranked when it comes to CS.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
58,509
8,781
126
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:

If only they made enough money to hire some decent programmers. :(

I saw a poster from CMU's career center - 30% of CS majors who replied to a survey said they were going to Microsoft. CMU is pretty high-ranked when it comes to CS.

Stop That!! You're gonna take all the fun out of bashing MS on a daily basis ;)

 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: lxskllr
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: CTho9305
Let Windows manage it.
I dunno, all those Computer Science majors Microsoft hires probably don't know the various rules of thumb about page files and haven't done any analysis to find the best algorithms for page file sizing. :roll:

If only they made enough money to hire some decent programmers. :(

I saw a poster from CMU's career center - 30% of CS majors who replied to a survey said they were going to Microsoft. CMU is pretty high-ranked when it comes to CS.

Stop That!! You're gonna take all the fun out of bashing MS on a daily basis ;)

My comment wasn't a bash at all, it was a joke (and not even at Microsoft's expense). :roll:
 

Boztech

Senior member
May 12, 2004
782
0
0
How exactly does one quantify the performance benefit of changing pagefile size and location, anyway?
 

Link19

Senior member
Apr 22, 2003
971
0
0
If you have 2GB or more RAM, why not just disable it? Or do some programs require the page file even if you have enough RAM? I heard that some programs require the page file even if you have neough RAM only in Windows? But in linux, the page file can be disabled if you have a lot of physical RAM? Is that correct and why would that be?
 

imported_goku

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2004
7,613
3
0
Originally posted by: Boztech
How exactly does one quantify the performance benefit of changing pagefile size and location, anyway?

I'll probably get flamed by n0cmonkey because he is insistant that microsoft has made their opertating system "optimized", therefore it requires no changing of settings what so ever after leaving the box...:roll:

Here is the way I look at it, you have a drive, say 120GB, you install windows, change settings to how you like your interface, install system updates and install what ever system utilities you like, so then you're using about 5GB-10GB of space, this is excluding the installation of programs in excess of 100MBs....You disable the pagefile, defragment, enable the pagefile and set it to a large contiguous file of about 1536MB, which is acorrding to windows, 1.5GB. (I do since I have 1GB of ram and would rarely exceed 1.5GB of PF) Now since this is a 120GB drive, everything, including the pagefile are stored very early on in the drive, which would be on the outer part of the platters.

You install all the programs and games you want and now your drive is using up about 50GB (in my case), well your pagefile is still there, snugly knit between your files and therefore can't move, personally, I've yet to encounter an issue with the size I've got my pagefile set at. So you run the programs you normally would run and they start to use up the pagefile, well because your pagefile is stored so early on in the drive, the programs can get close to the fastest access possible by the drive.

Had you let windows' manage the drive's pagefile, the pagefile would probably at most be using about 200MB in the beginning of the drive with peices scattered all about the drive. So in the case of letting windows' manage the pagefile, you've got multiple problems to contend with;
1. Information that is larger than the fragments the pagefile has been distributed in (say in a relatively fragmented drive with 60 fragments in the PF with 50 of them that have sizes ranging in 1MB -160MB) now you've got a game that is loading textures in with a minimum of 10MB and with an average of 100MB. So now as the pagefile is filling up to the windows' default size, all those scattered peices that have been designated as the pagefile are slowing down the writing to of the pagefile because the texture files have to be split up into multiple peices which takes processing power and then the drive has to find those fragments, write to them and continue this process. All of this could have been so much easier with a contiguous pagefile because there would be no splitting up of textures etc. and random accessing of the drive to write to the bits of pagefile

2. Now that you've got all of those files written to pagefile and the game is loaded, this process isn't going to end, as you go through the map in a game, more and more files are being loaded and unloaded into the pagefile, so now the drive's access times are becoming a very important factor because they're slowing down the access of the fragmented pagefile which needs to be written to and flushed so that more relevant things are in there, things that pertain the game albiet more. (I know, thats what the ram is for but when you're ram limited like in BF2 in the case of 1GB, relevant files are still important)
Since the pagefile is on the same drive as the textures being loaded, now you've got to factor in the fact that the drive is being competed for between the program being loaded and the pagefile that is being filled by the program.

3. Alright, now that you've installed more programs in your computer and you may or may not have bloat ware loading up at startup, you're now starting with a larger default page file with games for example creating a new maximum since you've now got a new minimum that has been increased through time. So instead of your pagefile being in 60 fragments, it's now in about 300 fragments (believe it or not, I've seen a drive with 1000+ fragments in the pagefile) and because of this, other programs' installations are becoming fragmented as well which can and will become a significant problem. So not only is the drive's fragmented pagefile going to slow down the running of programs, but it will slow down it's self because those fragments are now much further down on the drive's platters, therefore not being able to have the faster transfer rates of the outer platters as much.

Mini summary:
1. Because your pagefile increases with use, it becomes fragmented therefore increasing the drives' depenancy on the access times'.
2. Since your pagefile is fragmented, all programs you run that require a good amount of the pagefile, for example games, require to be split up into size corresponding with the fragments of the pagefile therefore slowing down things a bit.
3. Because your pagefile is fragmented, it essentially folds onto it's self like an obese man's flabby man tit hitting him in the face when he goes to lie down because it's requiring more overhead to deal with the pagefile and it doesn't get the faster access times/ transfer rates of the outer platter like you do with a contiguous pagefile.
4. Because your pagefile is fragmented, your files become fragmented and then it snowballs...
5. Because you can't argue that it's "hurting performance" and it could only be improving performance of the pagefile and the drive as a whole, the only feasable arguement for doing this is that it's "a waste of time".
6. I wish I could explain this better which I could very well do but because this is a post and I'm not writing a book, I'm therefore doing a poor job at it.
7. I now expect nocmonkey to reply with some one liner in attempt to irritate me because I just wrote out this lengthy post.
 

imported_goku

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2004
7,613
3
0
Originally posted by: Link19
If you have 2GB or more RAM, why not just disable it? Or do some programs require the page file even if you have enough RAM? I heard that some programs require the page file even if you have neough RAM only in Windows? But in linux, the page file can be disabled if you have a lot of physical RAM? Is that correct and why would that be?

No, programs always will use the pagefile, disabling it doesn't *actually* disable it as windows' will create it's own. There's no point in disabling it, in a game like BF2, I'm sure it uses the pagefile as it provides as a repository for file that aren't being used at the moment but are "requested" frequently enough to be in the pagefile.
 

craige4u

Member
Dec 19, 2005
132
0
0
Goku ? I appreciated your understanding in writing such a lengthy post!
In fact I am having an 120GB SATA HD too !

So, what you think of my current pagefile settings ? PF is set to, 1536 Min. & 3072 Max. On Windows drive.

Also, as I stated earlier, I have two partition on my HD, Drive C: for windows and Drive D: for games, music etc. Whts your idea on PF on Drive: D ?

Any recommendation of the PF settings, if I upgrade it to 2GB of RAM ?