Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Yezinki on February 05, 2009, 08:07:36 AM
-
Hi there,
Is it possible that for the page file to get deleted when the system is shut down & recreated on start up?
Thanks.
-
This image is from a Help and Support search on pagefile.
-
Thanks DavidR,
Is this "Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options" a Registry key......if correct where in HKEY?
Regards,
Yezinki.
-
I don't know, I don't use it, I just found the reference for you, you can repeat the search and click on the more information link on that page.
Or you can search the registry.
-
Thanks again.
Run> GPEDIT.MSC> Computer Configuration\Windows Settings\Security Settings\Local Policies\Security Options> Shutdown: Clear virtual memory page file : Disabled to Enabled.
-
GPEDIT.MSC is not available on XP Home but I don't know about Vista as I don't have it yet.
Please see:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314834
-
Really but it runs on XP MCE on this Sony Vaio VGC-LS1........... :-\
-
Found this and kept it some time ago.
The KB number is included. Takes an extra 2min~ to shut down.
-
Found this and kept it some time ago.
The KB number is included. Takes an extra 2min~ to shut down.
That's why I don't bother but then I'm not paranoid nor OCD.
-
And why exactly are you asking? (the question in the first post, I mean) ;)
-
It's not the question of just being paranoid, since its recreated each time on start up & deleted on shut down, lesser chances of fragmentation plus I feel after Enabling the option this desktop is running even smother.
Just my thoughts....
Yezinki.
-
Once the pagefile is created it does not change nor does it become fragmented unless you add more RAM.
-
You must be correct but my machine's page file gets fragmented despite that no changes in RAM are made........ ???
-
Have you run PageDefrag?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx
-
You must be correct but my machine's page file gets fragmented despite that no changes in RAM are made........ ???
Generally fragmentation comes of having a flexible pagefile size, mine is set to Custom size, with a minimum size, equal to my RAM (2048MB) and a maximum (3072MB) and it is extremely rare that I see a fragment in it.
-
Thanks DavidR & YoKenny.
2 queries:
1. Why is custom size different.....some suggest both min. & max. should be the same?
2. Rule for setting page file size........1.5 X RAM?
Yezinki.
-
If you set them to be the same than you have to have it larger, like the 1.5 X RAM rule of thumb which some recommend.
I have had my setup like this for some time and my page file has never grown larger than the 2GB minimum so I would effectively be wasting HDD space if it isn't regularly being used.
-
1. Why is custom size different.....some suggest both min. & max. should be the same?
2. Rule for setting page file size........1.5 X RAM?
I agree with DavidR's feedback. Here's some additional info and experience you might find helpful.
1) They don't need to be the same. The min should be high enough that nothing more than that is used -- except for extraordinary circumstances like a malfunctioning process. In that case the "Insufficient virtual memory. xp is expanding the page file" message is a useful indicator that something has gone wrong. My system works perfectly with 1GB min and 2GB max.
2) That rule of thumb is virtually useless. On most xp systems a 1GB page file should be about right, regardless of the amount of installed memory.
I find the following tool for monitoring actual page file usage to be useful. The task manager or even the Process Explorer utility don't give you this information.
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
More interesting info available at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
--
Win XP Pro, 1GB RAM, dual 600 MHz PIII processors
(1 to go)
-
Really guys, it depends on what applications you use. For example i found some games on my system use over 5gb of virtual memory so i have mine set pretty large(6gb).
EDIT: Typo ... ;D
-
Thanks DavidR,, Alan Baxter, darth_mikey,
To summarize, their is NO rule to set the total & min & max size of page file...am I correct?
What variables can determine & affect the total size........pros & cons to have the min & max set at different & same sizes?
Yezinki.
-
The idea behind having the page file set at a fixed size is that it doesn't get fragmented that way.
The safest thing to do is to let windows manage the page file and run PageDefrag from time to time(btw don't you have PerfectDisk ?) in case it gets fragmented. That way you shouldn't run into those "out of virtual memory" errors.
-
Thanks darth_mikey to summarize in depth.
You have a good memory, yes I have Perfect Disk.
Yezinki.
-
BTW the way i determined the size for my page file was to set it to a huge size(something like 10gb) and then i ran one of my most demanding apps(in this case a 3d game) and i then checked the page file usage in Task Manager. Like i said it was a bit over 5gb in my case so i set it at 6gb(to be on the safe side). However i had "only" 2gb of ram then so now that i have more i could decrease it's size but honestly i have more than enough hdd space(1tb) so i don't care about that 1 or 2gb of space that i would gain by this. Besides having a slightly larger page file is certainly not a dumb idea as it ensures you never run out of virtual memory.
If you have PD then a boot time defrag will sort out any fragments the page file might have, no need for PageDefrag then.
-
Thanks again darth_mikey,
My desktop's Task manager shows Kernel memory> Total> 77864 > Paged> 47200 >Non Paged > 30588 approx with 1.99 GB @677 MHZ of RAM.
So what in your opinion should be the size?
I have set it at 3057 MB min & max.
Hoping to hear your expert thoughts.
Yezinki.
-
Honestly i can't say what the right size for your system would be(it's different from system to system), you'll have to find that out for yourself. Download this program (http://www.bertel.de/software/ShowMem/index-en.html) start it and fire up the most memory intensive app you have on your system. Check the page file usage with this program and you should have a better idea at what the max page file usage is on your system. Though i think the amount you have set right now is perfectly fine.
CLICK HERE FOR DIRECT DOWNLOAD LINK (http://www.bertel.de/software/ShowMem/20070516_mb_ShowMemC.zip)
-
I think that asking for a recommended Page File size is like asking for a recipe for Apple pie.
Everyone has their favorite.
I bet it took a lot of tries to get an Apple pie that you like best.
Ever since I started to run XP I let it look after the Page File and it only once became fragmented and that was when I added more RAM but PageDefrag soon fixed that.
-
I agree. The problem here is that people usually set the size too low and that is definitely not what you want. I've seen alot of people setting their page file to a very small size or even disabling it which caused them alot of headaches when the system started to run out of virtual memory and their apps started crashing as a result of that.
...
The safest thing to do is to let windows manage the page file and run PageDefrag from time to time(btw don't you have PerfectDisk ?) in case it gets fragmented. That way you shouldn't run into those "out of virtual memory" errors.
-
Reflecting back on my Apple Pie analogy maybe Curried Chicken or Goat would be better?
I bet this still tastes like Chicken ;D
http://www.recipe4all.com/recipe/CURRIED-FROGS-LEGS-3299
-
i then checked the page file usage in Task Manager.
Actually, the XP Task Manager doesn't report actual "Page File Usage". It claims it does, but it doesn't. What it's really reporting is the Commit Charge, i.e. total Private Bytes, a number which is only very loosely related to actual memory or page file usage. But disk space is cheap and plentiful. Make your page file as large as you like.
From http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm:
Also, the ‘PF Usage’ (Page File in Use) measurement in Task Manager | Performance for ‘Page File in Use’ include those potential uses by pages that have not been taken up. It makes a good indicator of the adequacy of the ‘Maximum’ size setting, but not for the ‘Initial’ one, let alone for any need for more RAM.
-
Actually if you go through the thread again you'll notice we provided links to 2 different utilites that measure page file usage. And read my sig Alan ... I'm on Vista ;)
(http://www.shrani.si/f/12/jM/2NBp5tmB/taskmanager.jpg)
-
Actually if you go through the thread again you'll notice we provided links to 2 different utilites that measure page file usage. And read my sig Alan ... I'm on Vista ;)
You mean two utilities in addition to the one I mentioned? ;) And sorry, I didn't know you're on Vista. I have display of sigs turned off. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of your screenshot. Is there any reason to believe that Vista's report of page file usage is any less misleading than XP's?
-
Well i don't know, every util i ran so far over here confirms what task manager is saying. So either they are all lying or those really are the real figures.
-
Sorry, darth_mikey. They're all misleading you. They're just regurgitating the same mislabeled and misleading numbers that the XP Task Manager does. I just installed "Show Memory", and it isn't any better than the XP Task Manager. http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm is the only utility I know of that gives the actual page file usage on XP. I don't know what to recommend for a Vista user.
-
Yeah i just realized that "show memory"(haven't even used it till now) shows the virtual memory usage(page file + used ram), my bad should have checked. Same as task manager then, to got to the actual number of used pagefile you need to do a little calculating. Virtual Memory used - Ram in use and you get the number you wanted. I think i used SIW to check this but i could be wrong, i have to check. But i think it was SIW.
-
Confirmed, SIW shows the REAL page file usage. Great little program. http://www.gtopala.com/siw-download.html (the freeware version will do just fine and it runs on Vista).
(http://www.shrani.si/f/F/jl/3W5aqGpL/siw.jpg)
EDIT: Screenshot added ... :)
-
Cool! Confirmed on XP as well. Thank you for turning me on to it! ;D
-
Yeah no problem at all. Though i have had this installed in the past(when i was still on 32bit Vista ;D ) i haven't used it for quite awhile now since there was no real need and i completely forgot about it. It really is a great program and the free version has plenty of features. Great replacement for the old Everest home edition on Vista. Another great freebie is PC Wizard in case someone is searching for a free system info utility.
Cheers !