If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
I have 2 GB worth of physical memory and 1 physical drive with 1 partition
because I don't have the need for a second partition. Windows recommends using pagefile setting of 3070 MB, but sets my pagefile to 2047 MB regardless of what setting I use, unless I choose not to have a pagefile. I have tried using 2048 MB to match the currrent amount of physical RAM, and it still won't set it to 2047 MB. I have tried using 4096, but Windows won't let me set it beyond 4095, which I know is a physical limitation on the OS per partition. I know it's a moot point since I have 2 GB worth of physical memory, but I'm baffled here and have to have an answer to the equation before me. I would rather not use anything at all, but I know a pagefile is necessary. I just keep thinking that I'm missing out on the maximum performance I can get out of this laptop since my pagefile setting is lower than what the system is recommending. Any thoughts? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
Laurence wrote:
I have 2 GB worth of physical memory and 1 physical drive with 1 partition because I don't have the need for a second partition. Windows recommends using pagefile setting of 3070 MB, but sets my pagefile to 2047 MB regardless of what setting I use, unless I choose not to have a pagefile. I have tried using 2048 MB to match the currrent amount of physical RAM, and it still won't set it to 2047 MB. I have tried using 4096, but Windows won't let me set it beyond 4095, which I know is a physical limitation on the OS per partition. I know it's a moot point since I have 2 GB worth of physical memory, but I'm baffled here and have to have an answer to the equation before me. I would rather not use anything at all, but I know a pagefile is necessary. I just keep thinking that I'm missing out on the maximum performance I can get out of this laptop since my pagefile setting is lower than what the system is recommending. Any thoughts? In theory, the more memory you have, and you have a lot, the less page file space will be used. Certain apps take some page file space for their own use even though they shouldn't, but for the most part this theory is what works in practice. Read about virtual memory and how to set the page file in Alex Nichol's excellent article, http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm. XP's recommendations are out of line when there is a large amount of memory in the system. You might want start with an initial size of 50 or 100 MB and set a maximum of 1024 or 2048. XP won't take that much. It will just take what it needs. You can use Bill James' utility to monitor page file use and see how much your system is actually using. The numbers provided by XP in task manager are deceptive. Get it from he http://www.dougknox.com/ in the Win XP Utilities section, "XP Page File Monitoring Utility." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
C 'Setting VM with WinXP-2K_Pagefile.vbs' of 12/16/04
for what stats mean & how PF operates & implications to OS with RAM1GB. NOT lite reading tho HTH-Larry On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:59:01 -0800, Rock wrote: | Read about virtual memory and how to |set the page file in Alex Nichol's excellent article, |http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm. XP's recommendations are out of line |when there is a large amount of memory in the system. You might want |start with an initial size of 50 or 100 MB and set a maximum of 1024 or |2048. XP won't take that much. It will just take what it needs. | | |You can use Bill James' utility to monitor page file use and see how |much your system is actually using. The numbers provided by XP in task |manager are deceptive. Get it from he http://www.dougknox.com/ in |the Win XP Utilities section, "XP Page File Monitoring Utility." Any advise is my attempt to contribute more than I have received but I can only assure you that it works on my PC. GOOD LUCK. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
Laurence wrote:
I have 2 GB worth of physical memory and 1 physical drive with 1 partition because I don't have the need for a second partition. Windows recommends using pagefile setting of 3070 MB, but sets my pagefile to 2047 MB regardless of what setting I use, unless I choose not to have a pagefile. It is absurdly too much. You need a page file - principally to give a 'home' to pages of memory that have been allocated to programs but never brought into use. I suggest an initial size 100 MB, Max maybe 1024 to cover such contingencies. You will probably find if you check on the super-hidden pagefile.sys in explorer that it never gets bigger than the 100. Read more at my page www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
Alex Nichol Wrote: It is absurdly too much. You need a page file - principally to give a 'home' to pages of memory that have been allocated to programs but never brought into use. I suggest an initial size 100 MB, Max maybe 1024 to cover such contingencies. You will probably find if you check on the super-hidden pagefile.sys in explorer that it never gets bigger than the 100. Read more at my page www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) what a ridiculous statement...in every regard. Alex is under the impression that since he doesn't put his memory under pressure, nobody does. foremost, there is NO penalty for having a pagefile that might be too big...there is a HUGE penalty for having one too small plenty of people need MORE then two gig page file..ESPECIALLY people that have over a gig of memory second, the pagefile IS NOT a "'home' to pages of memory that have been allocated to programs but never brought into use." the pagefile is an area on the disk that allows xp to make modified pages part of the memory management strategy pages that haven't been modified are simply paged using the file whence they originally came DO NOT USE THE SETTINGS ALEX SUGGESTS, they are counterproductive if you are not short on hardrive space NEVER LOWER THE DEFAULT SETTINGS OF THE PAGEFILE period now, if you'd like a proper explanation of the pagefile, http://www.osnn.net/articles.php?act...showarticle=99 is a good one you'll need to have a basic understanding of the pagefile in the first place to follow that one along -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
In news
perris typed:
Alex Nichol Wrote: It is absurdly too much. You need a page file - principally to give a 'home' to pages of memory that have been allocated to programs but never brought into use. I suggest an initial size 100 MB, Max maybe 1024 to cover such contingencies. You will probably find if you check on the super-hidden pagefile.sys in explorer that it never gets bigger than the 100. Read more at my page www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) what a ridiculous statement...in every regard. Alex is under the impression that since he doesn't put his memory under pressure, nobody does. No, Alex's statement is completely accurate. foremost, there is NO penalty for having a pagefile that might be too big... The only penalty is that it's waste of disk space. In these days of very cheap large drives, that's a much smaller penalty than it used to be, but it is a penalty. there is a HUGE penalty for having one too small Only if you prevent it from growing larger as needed. plenty of people need MORE then two gig page file..ESPECIALLY people that have over a gig of memory That's backwards. The more memory you have, the *less* page file you need. -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
my statemensts stand you wrote; The only penalty is that it's waste of disk space" that's correct and we agree on that...as I allready stated, my points are for those that do not have a storage issue. if there is no hardrive issue, there is absolutely no lowering the setting from the default you wrote; [there is a penalty]""Only if you prevent it from growing larger as needed." this is oncorrect in every sense...expansion is a hit a; by, when it was invoked, and obviously since it might need to be invoked in addition, by haing a smaller pagefile then the amount of memory in use, a user will at times take private writable memory, (modified pages) out of concideration for the memory manager. obvioulsy, dlls and exe's would be unloaded in these situations instead of the best candidate you wrote; [the idea that the more memory the bigger the pagefile]"That's backwards. The more memory you have, the *less* page file you need. absolutely incorrect. every bit of memory a user has in use needs backing on the hardrive. the only users that don't need to increase the size of the pagefile when they have more memory are the users that don't use the extra memory they installed. of course, there are users that install more memory then they use..these users won't suffer a hit by lowering the default pagefile settings...but they get absolutely no gain by doing it..,.and they DO risk a slow down in the future pretty simple; since there is no penalty what so ever if the pagefile might be too big, DO NOT MAKE THE SETTINGS LOWER THEN THE DEFAULT, unless you have a storage issue pretty self evident |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
perris wrote:
[the idea that the more memory the bigger the pagefile]"That's backwards. The more memory you have, the *less* page file you need. absolutely incorrect. For a given workload it is entirely correct. You seem unable to understand that nothing is written into the page file (other than a small amount the system seems to park there for contingencies) until there is insufficient room in RAM. It is then used for overflow. On large RAM this may be never - or it may be quite early if the workload is very heavy. Hence the advice (which you will also find in Ed Bott's 'Windows XP Inside out') to set initial size at 100 *in the first instance*. If the size of the file grows, update the initial size accordingly, to cover all normal use. every bit of memory a user has in use needs backing on the hardrive. Now that *is* incorrect. The total VM allocation in use must be contained in the sum of RAM and page file. As above - *nothing* is written to page file until RAM overflows. If there is a significant page file actual use, then RAM is marginally adequate at best - get more. Or do not load so many things to sit around doing nothing. Also realise that there is a total limit of virtual memory space set but the underlying system memory model; RAM plus page file of more than 4GB is certainly no use (apart from the case of Fast User Switching), and more than 3 GB very dubious the only users that don't need to increase the size of the pagefile when they have more memory are the users that don't use the extra memory they installed. And so is that And that is all I am going to say. -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
You can actually monitor & test Pagefile usage with a couple of XP
tools. One, Perfmon.Msc will show you in %, total Pagefile usage. You do have to add counters for Pagefile ( Usage, Peak Usage). By using TaskMgr, Performance - you can monitor Memory usage (The PF meter). My system has 1.0 Gigabytes of memory, so take that into account when reading the values presented below. On my System I have a 128 Min Pagefile. When no applications are running my PF meter runs at 187 Megabytes and the Pagefile % will be at 11%. Under heavy loading (VPC, Word, Outlook, OE & Streets & Trips) memory usage climbs to 527 Megabytes and the Pagefile percentage climbs to 27% or 34 Megabytes of the Pagefile. My VPC uses 256 megabytes for the Windows 2000 instance. The point of all this is that as long as available Physical memory is available to XP, it won't make extensive use of the Pagefile. Because of memory requirements, I now recommend that all my customers do not purchase a PC that has less than 512 Megabytes of memory. If you spend 30-45 minutes testing your own system, you can see in real world terms how XP utilizes memory. "Alex Nichol" wrote in message ... perris wrote: [the idea that the more memory the bigger the pagefile]"That's backwards. The more memory you have, the *less* page file you need. absolutely incorrect. For a given workload it is entirely correct. You seem unable to understand that nothing is written into the page file (other than a small amount the system seems to park there for contingencies) until there is insufficient room in RAM. It is then used for overflow. On large RAM this may be never - or it may be quite early if the workload is very heavy. Hence the advice (which you will also find in Ed Bott's 'Windows XP Inside out') to set initial size at 100 *in the first instance*. If the size of the file grows, update the initial size accordingly, to cover all normal use. every bit of memory a user has in use needs backing on the hardrive. Now that *is* incorrect. The total VM allocation in use must be contained in the sum of RAM and page file. As above - *nothing* is written to page file until RAM overflows. If there is a significant page file actual use, then RAM is marginally adequate at best - get more. Or do not load so many things to sit around doing nothing. Also realise that there is a total limit of virtual memory space set but the underlying system memory model; RAM plus page file of more than 4GB is certainly no use (apart from the case of Fast User Switching), and more than 3 GB very dubious the only users that don't need to increase the size of the pagefile when they have more memory are the users that don't use the extra memory they installed. And so is that And that is all I am going to say. -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
Alex wrote; (the more ram, the smaller the pagefile) "for a given workload it is entirely correct." well, this is like saying "when it doesn't rain, it doesn't percipitate."isn't it...this is like saying "if I don't use my memory, then I won't use my memory"...that's all youve said. for those of you that want best performance, every bit of memory in use needs an area on the hardrive, otherwise, memory that MIGHT have been written to the pagefile will not be considered for the memory manager...other candiates will be concidered instead...pretty simple therefore, for whatever amount of memory you have, the pagefile needs to be AT LEAST as big as that...in the event YOU MIGHT use the memory you have installed...that's the purpose of memory in the first place. as Alex himself has stated, "free memory is wasted memory"...he and I agree on that point Alex wrote; " You seem unable to understand that nothing is written into the page file" rediculous...the pagefile ALWAYS has information written to it, the caveat you mention is hardly all that's written to the pagefile. on the other hand, what YOU definitely don't understand is that it matters not one stitch how much is ACTUALLY written or isn't written to the pagefile all that matters is that there is an area on the hardrive for modified pages are you under the impression that modified data can share the same area in the pagefile, simply because nobody yet is written to the area?..that is incorrect if I work at night and you work in the day, we still can't share the same bed can we self evident once told again, ALL data in memory needs IT'S OWN hardrive area...it doesn't "share" the address. you also seem to think that there is no performance hit "until" the os requests more virtual memory. this is incorrect...if there is private writable that is has no area on the hardrive for backing store, the memory manager goes to the next best candidate there are hit's long before expansion is invoked...and then obviously WHEN expansion is invoked Alex wrote'; "nothing* is written to page file until RAM overflows." this is incorrect...pages are written long before "ram overflows"...xp writes information of most likely pages before memory is under pressure so there is less overhead at the time of pressure IN ADDITION; all memory in use NEED it's own address, whether or not it's yet written..Data doesn't share it's bed simply because no other data is in the bed at the moment Alex wrote; "If there is a significant page file actual use, then RAM is marginally adequate at best - get more. Or do not load so many things to sit around doing nothing." you can't be serious!...you are trying to say that to accommodate your preference in how big a pagefile should be, users have to load fewer programs?...or buy more ram? umm...no, all most users need do is NOT lower the default settings...you've made my point for me in the end, you've made every case...you agree that for people that do not have a storage issue, there is ABSOLUTELY NO penalty for a pagefile that might be too big you also correctly site the instances of fast users on the box need a bigger pagefile you also agree there is a hit for people that have a pagefile too small so exactly what is your point? why on earth would a person want to lower the default settings when there is nothing to gain and possibly performance to suffer? you tell me what is the point of your settings for people that don't have a storage issue? for users that want best performance on their box, DO NOT lower the settings of the pagefile -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
there is obviously a missunderstanding of what the pagefile does, and what it 's there for. the pagefile is not where most of paging happens. the pagefile is only for the data that doesn't look the same as when it was first brought into use the pagefile is for "modified pages" any information that looks the same as it did before you started working simply gets "released" from memory. for instance, if you launch a program...if memory needs to be claimed, and this program that you launched will be least likely missed, then the most rarely used features of this program are simply taken out of physical memory. if you happen to reference this rarely used feature once it's been released, the operating system just goes back to the original program to retrieve that information there is no pagefile used for this paging, and this is the majority of paging on your computer now, suppose the feature that is the least likely to be used happens to not look the same as it did when it was loaded? or suppose it wasn't even on the hardrive in the first place...like a document you were working on an hour ago well, those pieces of information that have been modified need to have a place to be backed in case they are the best candidate for memory to be claimed the pagefile is where the operating system will back modified information ....nothing else gets backed to the pagefile , information that hasn't been modified gets backed to the file, dll, exe from whence it first loaded if the pagefile is not there, or is too small, then modified information won't be a candidate for the memory manager how will this manifest? suppose you've minimized something you're working on...like a document; you haven't worked on that document for say a half hour or whatever. if there is no area for that information to get backed, then if your memory goes under pressure, instead of using this document for physical memory, the os will go to something you've worked on more recently that's no good important; when the operating system needs to reclaim memory, it will do it regardless of the size of the pagefile...it will simply reclaim where it can reclaim, instead of where it should reclaim memory having the pagefile smaller then the default in no fashion whatsoever keeps xp from reclaiming memory having the pagefile too small will actually cause MORE paging, not less paging! since the os will at times page features that are are referenced more recently then what would have been in the pagefile, there is more swapping, not less swapping if the pagefile is too small. there is never more swapping if the pagefile is too big a performance hit of this nature won't even be recognized by most users, or they won't attribute the hit to a pagefile that's too small it will manifest as a little hitch or bog as you try to do something that"s become unloaded that wouldn't have been unloaded if the best candidate were available -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
and this just because I'm in the mood; in a normal configuration, xp will allow each program to allot virtual address memory up to 4 gigs how many people does anyone know that hs 4 gigs of memory installed? obviously, with correct configuration, programs can allocate virtual memory that will easily exceed the physical memory installed on the box....although, with some of the suggestions on this thread, that won't be easy. obviously again, the operating system needs a memory manager that'll distribute physical memory as virtual need presents itself. the memory manager starts out by assigning each process a portion of the physical memory...this amount of physical memory is called the "working set" of that process most programs are written with the "90/10 rule"...that is they spend 90% of the time accessing 10% of their code...thus a working set doesn't need to be nearly as large as a programs features would imply. obviously, hardly anybody has enough physical memory to survive without virtual memory. The memory manager of xp will actually expand and contract a working set according to the users need...again, this strategy is impeded when the kernel teams recomendations are circuvented. at times a process will request a "page" that has not been represented in the "working set" everyone knows, when that happens, a "page fault" is generated....if there is enough physical memory available, the memory manager simply assigns some of the memory from the available pool...now the next part is sweet;..if there is enough physical memory to allow it, then this process's "working set" is simply increased at no price to any other process ... nice. However, if there isn't enough physical memory available, then this new page will have to replace a page that's somewhere in physical memory...the memory manager will use the page that hasn't 't been referenced in the longest period of time...in most cases, this particular page that hasn't been referanced in the longest while will most likely not get referenced again, and it is the safest candidate to take out of physical memory. so now that the Memory Manager removes a page from a process working set, it has to decide what to do with the info that was in that page. If the data has been modified, the Memory Manager will put it on the modified page list, ( a list of pages that eventually will be written to the paging file) or if it's not been modified, then back to the memory-mapped files from whence those pages correspond. From the modified page list, the Memory Manager moves pages to a pool called the "standby list". Unmodified pages go directly to the standby list.!!! ( you can view the standby list as a cache of file data) The "stand by list" is one of the sweetest policies of memory management;...this is a list of physical memory that is available for anything at all, but it still has the data that was at one time being used somewhere!...so if that data does happen to get referanced before this physical memory is claimed, the page comes streight from ram...very very nice The standby list is memory that's also considered by the memory manager as "available memory"...there are other pools that'll contribute to available memory...pages that contain info which belonged to data that's been dealocated...for instance, pages that once belonged to processes you've closed down...also, pages that were freed and filled with zero data by the Memory Manager's "low-priority zero page". All of this goes on dynamically, and the memory manager examines working sets once a second..when memory is under pressure, the memory manager will pro-actively remove pages from those working sets which haven't encountered a page fault in a certain time frame....now, when the memory manager pro-actively removes a page from a working set, that page simply goes into the standby list!!! In this fashion, the data isn't lost to the hardrive at all, though the system has prepared for a page fault before it happens! It's important to remember that the pages on the standby list are considered as available memory, and equally important to realize that they still retain the data whence they came. here's something nice; what this tuning mechanism does for idle threads, is it will take pages from those idle processes a little at a time, and the working sets on idle processes eventually disappear...processes that remain idle for a length of time eventually consume no physical memory ! OK, now if a process needs a new page of physical memory, the memory manager first looks to see if that page is on the standby or modified page list. It will be here if the page will be in one of these lists if the page was removed from that working set and it wasn't claimed for another purpose....this operation is called a "soft page fault" since it doesn't involve a read from the hardrive. if a page that's requested isn't on one of the available memory lists, a "Balance Set Manager" is triggered, and it'll trim the process working sets in order to populate the list that makes up available memory. If the memory manager has to remove a page from available memory, it'll read the data from somewhere on the hardrive...the paging file or an executable, whatever. if the data that the memory manager wanted to remove from available memory happens to be a page who's virtual address isn't availble due to incorrect settings, the memory manager will go to the next candidate that can be backed. -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
R. McCarty wrote:
You can actually monitor & test Pagefile usage with a couple of XP tools. One, Perfmon.Msc will show you in %, total Pagefile usage. You do have to add counters for Pagefile ( Usage, Peak Usage). By using TaskMgr, Performance - you can monitor Memory usage (The PF meter). It gives very misleading results. It gives the commit - all VM space that might go in the file if it all came into use - which it almost certainly won't. As such the values can easily by much larger than the physical size of the file if you start with an initial value enough for normal usage. Use instead the Page File Monitoring program, originally by Bill James MVP and redone in a complied version by Doug Knox, at http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/index.html. near bottom. which show the amount of file that is actually doing something. -- Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. (remove the D8 bit) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
I see Alex is basing his opinon on how much data is actually written to the pagefile this in no way represents how big the pagefile NEEDS to be the tool Alex is referring only shows what is already written to the pagefile...it DOES NOT show how much of the pagefile is being used by the os for address translation memory usage with perfuming will show the amount of hardrive area that is set aside for use. do not go lower then this EVEN IF YOU HAVE A STORAGE ISSUE if you have a storage issue, you can safely lower the default settings to about double your peak pagefile useage...then you won't suffer a hit as I spoke about in my previous posts. if you have no storage issue, in the best case scenario is a waste of time...in plenty of scenarios presents a performance liability don't do it -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Can't set pagefile beyond 2047 MB
I'm waiting for Alex to tell everyone exactly what he's accomplishing by telling even people with no storage issue to lower the default settings of the pagefile if he can come up with one scenario that it gives some kind of gain, then you could weigh that gain against the "possible" liability that I speak about if he can't come up with some kind of gain, then he just wants you to be pro active for no reason what so ever -- perris ------------------------------------------------------------------------ perris's Profile: http://forum.osnn.net/member.php?userid=17 View this thread: http://forum.osnn.net/showthread.php?t=46009 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
XP ignores Pagefile settings | srn1120 | General XP issues or comments | 14 | December 1st 07 08:19 PM |
Pagefile size won't change | Ken | General XP issues or comments | 10 | January 20th 05 12:37 PM |
Pagefile size quirks | Stevo | Windows XP Help and Support | 2 | November 10th 04 08:56 PM |
Pagefile and Photoshop 4 | jim | General XP issues or comments | 19 | July 27th 04 04:43 AM |