Virtual memory settings in XP Pro

[Andrew Warren]

Hi all,

Just wondering if it is preferable to set paging file
size to "custom size", (Min 1.5 x RAM, Max 3 x RAM as a
guide), or to "system managed size". Neither option is
clearly marked as a default, and I only ever remember my
computer as having it set to custom. (I am assuming
system managed should be default).

Andrew Warren from downunder

[Andrew Solovay]

Andrew Warren wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering if it is preferable to set paging file
> size to "custom size", (Min 1.5 x RAM, Max 3 x RAM as a
> guide), or to "system managed size". Neither option is
> clearly marked as a default, and I only ever remember my
> computer as having it set to custom. (I am assuming
> system managed should be default).

I think if you've got more disk space then you need, there are advantages to
setting a *fixed* custom size--that is, with the same value for "min" and
"max". That way the system can allocate a fixed-size paging file, then
defragment the file, and the file will stay defragmented (since its size
doesn't change). The downside is, all that disk space is being used whether
it's needed or not.

[Ron Martell]

"Andrew Warren" > wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Just wondering if it is preferable to set paging file
>size to "custom size", (Min 1.5 x RAM, Max 3 x RAM as a
>guide), or to "system managed size". Neither option is
>clearly marked as a default, and I only ever remember my
>computer as having it set to custom. (I am assuming
>system managed should be default).
>
>Andrew Warren from downunder

Those rules that relate paging file size to some multiple of RAM
amount are either a transplant from Unix/Linux or are deadwood left
over from the days when RAM quantities were much smaller than what it
normally used in today's systems.

The basic principle is that Windows XP uses the paging file to
compensate for the *lack* of sufficient RAM in the computer to meet
the total stated memory requirements of the loaded Windows components,
active application programs, and open user data files.

If all other factors are held constant then *more* RAM means *less*
paging file and *less* RAM means *more* paging file.

Using System Managed Size is always a good idea unless you have more
than one physical hard drive and want to configure multiple paging
files.

See MVP Alex Nichol's article on memory management in Windows XP at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

[Andrew Warren]

Thanks for your input, Andrew and Ron. I thought Alex
Nichols' article was interesting, and shed a bit more
light on the subject,

Best regards,

Andrew warren

>-----Original Message-----
>"Andrew Warren" > wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Just wondering if it is preferable to set paging file
>>size to "custom size", (Min 1.5 x RAM, Max 3 x RAM as a
>>guide), or to "system managed size". Neither option is
>>clearly marked as a default, and I only ever remember
my
>>computer as having it set to custom. (I am assuming
>>system managed should be default).
>>
>>Andrew Warren from downunder
>
>Those rules that relate paging file size to some
multiple of RAM
>amount are either a transplant from Unix/Linux or are
deadwood left
>over from the days when RAM quantities were much smaller
than what it
>normally used in today's systems.
>
>The basic principle is that Windows XP uses the paging
file to
>compensate for the *lack* of sufficient RAM in the
computer to meet
>the total stated memory requirements of the loaded
Windows components,
>active application programs, and open user data files.
>
>If all other factors are held constant then *more* RAM
means *less*
>paging file and *less* RAM means *more* paging file.
>
>Using System Managed Size is always a good idea unless
you have more
>than one physical hard drive and want to configure
multiple paging
>files.
>
>See MVP Alex Nichol's article on memory management in
Windows XP at
>http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
>
>
>Good luck
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>--
>Microsoft MVP
>On-Line Help Computer Service
>http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
>"The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
>.
>