I’m running Windows 2000 Pro on an Athlon XP 1800 with 1 GB DDR RAM.
Now, I’ve opened Task Manager when I had a lot of programs open, and I’ve never seen Windows using all (or even close to all) of my RAM. So I figure, hey, why do I need a paging file? All it’s doing is acting as virtual RAM when I don’t have enough, right? If I do have enough, should that still be a problem?
Windows seems to think so. Deleting the paging file prompts Windows to ask to put it back, not only every time I reboot, but also at random times when Windows decides it needs to “increase the size of the paging file” that isn’t there. I’ve also tried making the paging file really small, but Windows just goes ahead and increases it anyway.
Everything I’ve read suggests that the paging file should be 1.5x the amount of physical memory. I can see how this would make sense on a computer with 64MB of RAM, but having a 1.5GB paging file on a computer that shouldn’t need one at all doesn’t seem to make very much sense to me.
Even when you don’t page you use virtual memory. For example, you may have multiple programs running which all think they start at address 0x100. Virtual memory maps virtual addresses to physical addresses. Among other things, it can make a set of pages which are in discontiguous physically to appear as though they are at contiguous virtual addresses. An embedded OS might use virtual memory even if it will not do paging.
Having a paging file should not hurt you (other than taking up space).
You can disable virtual memory in WIN9X but it is not a good idea. If you do not need it the OS will not use it. The swap file just sits there untouched. But if you have disabled it and the system suddenly needs it, you’re stuck. The only rason to disable it would be if your disk space is extremely low and the solution is to make space on the disk. In simple words, the existance of the swap file is not slowing down your computer at all.
Well, like I said, I’ve never seen my computer use all of my RAM. I mean, I have more physical memory than many people have physical-and-paged combined. If you have 256MB RAM and a 512MB paging file, that’s still only 756MB to my 1024MB physical memory.
Is there any reason I would need this paging file, other than running out of physical memory? No matter how you look at it, 1.5GB is a whole lot of hard drive space. I can set the paging file to zero MB, effectively deleting it, but Windows 2000 always wants to bring it back, often saying that it’s neccessary (and not giving me a choice) to increase the size of my paging file, even though I’m clearly using less than half of my physical memory.
I am not familiar with WIN2000, only with WIN9X, so I cannot tell you how you would go about tinkering with the swap file there. Those using WIN9X can adjust the swap file size in System Properties / Performance / Virtual Memory.
XPav, i find your post more irritating than helpful.
>> Win2000 is very different than Windows 9x.
We know that and it was implied in my post wasn’t it? On the other hand the concept of virtual memory is as old as computing and goes back to when mainframe computers had memory measured in KB.
>> Ignore those people giving advice for Windows 9x. Sorry guys.
Since my advice was clearly directed to those using WIN9X this phrase is uncalled for. I was offering information to anyone using WIN9X and facing the same problem. If you read what I printed and think it was directed at the OP, then your reading comprehension is rather on the low side.
>> If you really need the 1.5gb of space, just limit the page file to a smaller number. Don’t make it zero, just make it smaller.
Well, we pretty much had all arrived there. The question is how do you do it in WIN2000 which I could not say but which you do not say either. Your post contributes nothing so far. Can you tell us where you manage the virtual memory in Windows 2000? Or are you just going to disqualify what others are trying to contribute?
neutron star, someone asked the very same question at Ars Technica. Here’s their discussion. From the looks of it, Win2000 will create a swap file even if you disable it, but they suggest some tweaks.
My CYA: I can’t verify the soundness of their advice or tweaks. Backup registry and anything else you’d hate to loose. When I do major tweaks, I first back up and assume that I may lose everything on the reboot.
Note that there are some “poorly behaved” programs out there that try to put into memory data that should really go into a file. Some multimedia progs do this but the one that really ticks me off is Forte Agent newsreader. When using it to download binaries, everything is kept in memory and if the binary is large enough, it will go thru real and virtual memory in no time. So keep this in mind in sizing/having a swap/page file. It’s clear the OP is keeping close enough watch on things that this shouldn’t be a problem but most people are not so watchful.
I believe some graphics programs will try to keep as much as they can in memory, which makes sense because going to disk slows things down a lot. If you are working on a large graphic, with several layers, and sevaral “undo” steps all kept in memory, then you can use memory at an alarming rate. And even more so if you are editing video.
Thanks for the answers, all. To clarify : I do know how to change the size of the paging file in Windows 2000 (To any Win 2000 users interested, go to Control Panel->System, Advanced tab, Performance Options button).
I was having problems with Windows bumping up the size of my paging file to 1 GB when it was set too small. Right now I’ve had it at 512MB for a couple hours and Windows hasn’t complained yet. If it does, I’m going to look into the options brachyrhynchos mentioned.
ftg, Agent isn’t really the best program for downloading binaries from Usenet. They’re a little behind the times, and very slow to release new versions. I’d recommend the freeware Xnews or shareware NewsReactor. Both support features Agent doesn’t, although pretty much every newsreader I’ve ever tried is a memory hog when it comes to binaries.
>> Control Panel->System, Advanced tab, Performance Options button
So it is quite similar to WIN9X. I know the inner workings of WIN2000 are very diffrent from WIN9X but every time I have looked into something I have found the interface so similar that I had no trouble tweaking things
I have never had the problem of WIN9X changing the settings for the virtual file although I do not remember having ever disabled it completely. Generally I fix the size by setting the max and min values to the same number. I assume it may disregard the settings if somehow they made no sense or something like that.
“The amount and type of RAM only becomes a performance issue when the amount of physical RAM (Read-Only Memory) is exceeded. RAM is faster for temporary data storage than a file on your hard disk. Windows NT and Windows 2000 use virtual memory (a file on your hard disk) as an overflow when the physical RAM is exceeded. Otherwise, the type and configuration of RAM plays a small factor in overall system performance.
Another issue that needs to be addressed when increasing that amount of RAM on your system is the virtual memory. The rule of thumb has been two to three times your RAM, so if you have 256MB RAM, your virtual memory should be 512MB. This insures the system has enough space to write information if you exceed your physical RAM.” http://www.solidmag.com/Summary/sum_bupdateND00.htm
Actually, the more memory you have, they more page file you need. Your page file should be set to 2.5 times your physical memory. Especially for NT/2k/xp. Set it to a fixed size, ignore windows recomendations. If possible, put the page file on a seperate partition or drive.
