Windows swap file - how large?

[will889]

Originally posted by: lopri
Here is what I do. If someone could comment on this I'd appreciate it.

1. Install Windows.
2. Remove Swapfile. (size=0 or near 0)
3. Reboot and defrag.
4. Set the Swapfile at 8GB 'fixed'. (physical RAM is also 8GB)
5. Reboot.

Let's suppose the time wasted is zero. 😉

Pretty much the same here except that the more the amount of physical mem I have installed past 2GB I then start to back down on the size of the PF. For my main unit with 4GB total I use a static 3072/3072. It would probably runs just as well with the PF OS managed though, but I have no issues to speak of.

 

[GrumpyMan]

I believe this subject has been dealt with before. Just do what I do, put the swap file to system managed and go have a couple of beers. Your computer will seem faster when you come back. :beer:

 

[tcsenter]

I use the same absolute min pagefile size, but a lower multiple for max pagefile as RAM increases. e.g.

1GB RAM = 1536MB/2560MB (2.5x)
2GB RAM = 1536MB/3072MB (1.5x)
4GB RAM = 1536MB/4096MB (1.0x)

Why? I have no idea, other than it makes sense to me on some completely subjective unexplainable level. Haven't encountered 8GB RAM.

 

[Auric]

Meh. Generally, capacity should directly relate to useage and unless the latter continues to outpace the the former then the pagefile becomes increasingly irrelevant.

Ergo, if rarely exceeding 4GB, for example, then the absolute size of the pagefile should be decreased dramatically (perhaps to a few hundred, say), not just the ratio, since it will have no effect on performance (or ability) either way. That said, it does not hurt except to waste disk capacity (and possibly contribute to fragmentation or displacing data to slower areas).

It's also funny how volks tend to configure in byte increments rather than round numbers. The whole bidness is so pedantic. Which makes it funnier still that despite teh bulk of the forum being same, some volks adamantly declare that the relative merits of pagefile configuration is not worth discussion. lols

 

[tcsenter]

Hey, at least I didn't try to justify my irrational pagefile scheme like a lot of other people do. I know its irrational, so I'm already way ahead. 😛

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Hey, at least I didn't try to justify my irrational pagefile scheme like a lot of other people do. I know its irrational, so I'm already way ahead. 😛

True. Which begs the question: if you know you're insane, can you be? 😕 😉

 

[Gamingphreek]

You guys who are using 8GB page files are insane. The 2.5x is severely outdated.

Most people are fine leaving it at Auto. Vista, from what I remember, manages the size much better than XP anyways. Despite this, and despite the first post, you will not decrease performance by making it static. I have always made it static on my Windows systems. To find out my size, I merely estimate. I have 2GB of RAM and even in an intense game with a few windows open in the background, I rarely break 1.5GB used. THEREFORE, there is NO NEED for me to allocated 2GB of my HDD to pagefile. I set mine around 512MB or 1024MB-- anymore is not necessary given how much memory modern day systems have unless you are doing special tasks and don't want to buy more memory.

-Kevin

 

[bigsnyder]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but those of use that are using 32-bit OS, if 4GB is the total limit on addressable memory space, why set the pagefile size plus your installed memory to exceed 4GB? For example in my system:

2GB installed RAM + 2GB pagefile = 4GB

Obviously someone with 4GB of installed ram would be the exception since it is usually safer to leave the pagefile enabled.

Does my logic make sense or is there something I'm missing here?