Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

16 GB RAM and 16 GB Page files?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Marth_01

Marth_01

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:08 PM

Posted 30 December 2011 - 01:37 PM

System Specs:
OS = Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
CPU = i7-860
GPU = GTX 480
RAM = 16 GB, 1333mhz
HDD 1 = WD 1.0TB 7200rpm 6gbs (boot)
HDD 2 = WD 1.5TB 5400rpm 3gbs (storage)

Programs Used:
Maya, 3DS Max, Adobe CS5.5, Skyrim, SC2, Portal2, etc.
Heavy viewport manipulation, rendering, video editing, gaming.

Question:
What should I set my page file size(s) to?

My "Automatically manage paging file size for ALL drives" is UNCHECKED.

I currently have it set to:
HDD 1 - System Managed (currently using 16gb)
HDD 2 - System Managed (currently using 16gb)

This has created a 16 gb pagefile.sys on each hard drive.
Is this necessary? Should I turn it off for the storage drive?

Thanks.

EDIT: I've seen many long discussions of people arguing of whether to turn the pagefile off or not. I am going to keep the pagefile on for certain, but what should the size(s) of it be?

Edited by Marth_01, 30 December 2011 - 01:55 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 LucheLibre

LucheLibre

  • Members
  • 608 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Local time:03:08 PM

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:02 PM

Your settings are normal. If you wish to turn off the storage drive pagefile, it will not hurt anything. Keep the one on the OS drive though.

If you're not suffering from space constraints on the OS dirve, then I'd suggest leaving the pagefile size alone. Your particular programs use a ton of RAM, and need a comfy pagefile for Windows to shuffle latent data around as needed.

If your OS drive is getting full, keep the pagefile size but have it just on the storage drive.

If both are full, you've got bigger problems to worry about than your pagefile. :-)

If it looks like I know what I'm doing, there's a pretty good chance the only reason for that is because
I once asked someone to run chkdsk /r and a BC Advisor smacked me in the back of the head.

~ LL ~


#3 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,112 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:02:08 PM

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:09 PM

That would not be "normal" on my system.

I dual-boot XP and Win 7 Home Premium.

4GB Ram installed.

Pagefile on one partition, not each.

On XP, my pagefile is about 4GB, system managed. Too high, but I have plenty of HD space...system never comes close to using that much VM.

On Win 7, pagefile is about 8GB, system managed. I suppose that I could reduce it manually but I can live with the system managed setting.

I see no advantage to having a pagefile on each partition. Considering the nature of the pagefile and how it is intended to be used, I have no idea why Win 7 sets it so much higher automatically.

Worth reading, IMO: http://www.edbott.com/weblog/2005/05/tip-of-the-day-use-task-manager-to-track-memory-usage/

If I were you, I'd change my setting to reflect one pagefile, system managed, and forget about it. Your pagefile, with the amount of RAM you have installed, is of minimal value, IMO.

I have 3 hard drives, 1 graphics editor, 3 video editors, 1 video capture card & software, Office, 3 music editors, and various other programs installed on my system.

Louis

#4 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,614 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:03:08 PM

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:13 PM

Leave your pagefile as system managed. As long as you aren't short on hd space there's no reason to change it.

#5 caperjac

caperjac

  • Members
  • 1,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NS. CAN
  • Local time:04:08 PM

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:40 PM

what ever happened to the old school page file user managed setting of 1 1/2 time the amount of system installed ram , in this case 16gig x 1.5= 24gig ,and user has a 1.0tb HDD so they are not in need of the space .and with 16gig of ram ,maybe not in need of the page file ,or i may be just old school

Edited by caperjac, 31 December 2011 - 06:42 PM.

My answers are my opinion only,usually


#6 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,112 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:02:08 PM

Posted 31 December 2011 - 10:31 PM

Those rules...were created for a totally different time period, a different Windows...and extraordinarily different hardware components. The pagefile was construed as a way of overcoming the fact that amounts of RAM available and installed...were miniscule and did not handle the needs of Windows 9x very well.

IMO, applying that thinking to a system in 2012 :) is somewhat ridiculous, given the amount of RAM installed now...far exceeds that even available...when those "rules" were created.

I don't believe in doing things by rote, especially when the original premises are no longer valid.

"The 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft Windows XP can support more RAM than the 32-bit versions of these products. When lots of memory is added to a computer, a paging file may not be required." Quote from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654 .

Louis

#7 caperjac

caperjac

  • Members
  • 1,649 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NS. CAN
  • Local time:04:08 PM

Posted 01 January 2012 - 06:08 AM

Those rules...were created for a totally different time period, a different Windows...and extraordinarily different hardware components. The pagefile was construed as a way of overcoming the fact that amounts of RAM available and installed...were miniscule and did not handle the needs of Windows 9x very well.

IMO, applying that thinking to a system in 2012 :) is somewhat ridiculous, given the amount of RAM installed now...far exceeds that even available...when those "rules" were created.

I don't believe in doing things by rote, especially when the original premises are no longer valid.

"The 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft Windows XP can support more RAM than the 32-bit versions of these products. When lots of memory is added to a computer, a paging file may not be required." Quote from http://support.microsoft.com/kb/889654 .

Louis


makes sense ,thanks, i guess i need to clear my memory a bit[or 2] and start fresh .hehe

happy new year

My answers are my opinion only,usually


#8 Allan

Allan

  • BC Advisor
  • 8,614 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Local time:03:08 PM

Posted 01 January 2012 - 08:27 AM

Windows (all versions) was designed to page - and it will. If there is enough ram then it will page to ram, but if there is a pagefile it will swap to virtual memory, leaving ram available for applications. If you disable the pagefile and the system perceives there is not enough ram to suit its purposes, it will create a pagefile and you will not know it - so you're not really disabling the pagefile, only your ability to manage it. Additionally, there were - and probably still are - some apps that simply won't run if they don't detect a pagefile. From my perspective, the bottom line is that there is absolutely no downside to having a pagefile and there is a potential downside to not having one.

This has been a contentious subject since XP was introduced. For my money the subject has, over the years, been blown way out of proportion. It's simply not something that needs to be messed with. My recommendation remains the same: unless you are short on disc space just leave it as system managed. There is absolutely no downside to doing so.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users