XP swapfile size suggestions

[fredwest]

Hi,
This is one issue I thought I had licked in win2k but I had issues even back then.

My 'main' PC is a P3 with 512 ram. While running win2k (now XP Pro) I set my swapfile manually to min/max of 128Mb. Everything was well for MONTHS....and then one day I was playing MOHAA (as usual) and using the sniper scope on an enemy as you do!! To my astonishment a message/popup appeared 'in the scope' as I was about to off someone or other to the effect that I 'was running low on virtual memory'. Now 512Mb of ram should not need a huge swapfile IMHO. Anyway I increased the swapfile to that recommended by MS (in the performance window) and this never happened again......

Now I have XP on the same box with the same specs. MS recommend I need 768Mb of swapfile.....so I've again manually set it 770/1500 min/max. Here's where I start questioning things.....

XP/2000....do i really need a swapfile so large? I don't game on this PC (maybe the odd MAME emulator etc) but as of now the pagefile in use is only 150-170Mb......and I have nearly a half gig available......

I'm worried that if I AGAIN manually set the swapfile to 128 min/max that the PC may lock up....or some such disaster....and I've never had a moments problem with XPpro.

Has anyone a suggestion for a 'reasonable' size swapfile with XP/2K remembering that I have 512Mb ram? What happens if I increase to 1Gb ram....will XP set swapfile size to over 2.5Gb??

Any proven ideas welcome.....in fact any ideas at all!!

[ktkendall]

I use 384 min and max, with my current 256Meg Ram..

[Blakhart]

Actualy, it is good to set a min higher than you will ever use, and set no max, let the os handle it.

[Panama Red]

I've posted this so many times, I keep it in my favorites for ease of finding it. This is what I use and it works great.

http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp

Check the links within too.

[ktkendall]

I've actually read right here on PCMECH- Optimization Tips that One should make min and max big enough but equal to reduce harddrive activity from having to resize the swapfile. I believe that was after being sure the HD is well defragged....

[rambler]

Originally posted by Panama Red I've posted this so many times, I keep it in my favorites for ease of finding it. This is what I use and it works great. http://support.microsoft.com/default...&Product=winxp Check the links within too.

Unfortunately, that article contains a glaring error - it says "To enhance performance, move the paging file to a different partition. When the paging file is on the boot partition, Windows must perform disk reading and writing requests on both the system folder and the paging file. When the paging file is moved to a different partition, there is less competition between reading and writing requests."

This is only true if the pagefile is moved to a different physical drive, not partition. Contention is at the drive, not partition level. In fact there'll be MORE not LESS contention, as the HD heads will have to move further between the boot partition and the pagefile partition

[lil Jimmie]

With a gig of ram I turn off the page file.

[HAL9000]

With XP... the best thing you can do... Let XP handle it.

[Blakhart]

You will never stop the os from paging.

[lil Jimmie]

Originally posted by Blakhart You will never stop the os from paging.

Well of course you won't stop it, but this topic had reminded me that I wanted to add/move the page file to my other SATA drive with a min/max of 1536Mb just for kicks.

[ktkendall]

Seem to remember that win98 won't boot if U disable it, no matter how much memory you have, and I know that when I did my first clean install of XP with 256MegRAM, it automatically set itself up for min of 384, but had a huge number in the max setting. I just set max to 384 also...

[HAL9000]

I figure why limit it with a max setting. Sure, its huge, but it doesn't mean its actually using that space, just that it CAN use that space. Should you ever require your page file to go above the max setting, you are now actually limiting your performance.

[ktkendall]

The automatic resizing feature of the swap file under Windows 95 is good for conserving disk space, but not good for performance. Using virtual memory at all reduces performance, but its even worse when the drive is continually resizing the file. So, if you have plenty of disk space to spare, give the swap file a set size. In the virtual memory settings window, set the min and max files to be the same. This will eliminate resizing.

Quoted from PCMECH's optimization tips....

[HAL9000]

Sorry.... I thought we were in the XP forum Unless you are currently filling up the minimum allocated size, constant resizing of the page file is a non issue. Given that most people with XP these days are running 512MB or more RAM, you will rarely see changes in the page file size.

Just to give you an example....I need in excess of 40 IE windows open just to get the pagefile usage to 600MB.

[ktkendall]

Makes sense to me....

[fredwest]

Hi guys,
Rambler is spot on about the MS error on that MS page from Panama! Had to do a double take when I read it .

I would like to have my swapfile on my f: drive which is a seperate disk. Problem is this is my backup drive mounted in a removable drive bay.....and if i need to remove it to update my P4 (also XPpro 512) and boot up my P3 I'll have no swapfile at ALL . God only knows what XP would do in that scenario and I'm not going to tempt fate!!

Is spreading the the swapfile over multiple logical drives on one physical drive an advantage as MS states....considering the blurb blunder which is also in the article that Panama listed?

Finally surely 'letting windows handle it' will only lead to even more fragmentation of drive data as the swapfile grows and shrinks?

Many thanks for the replies guys.