paging file size

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system) to use a 1 GB
paging file on each of my two HDs. Is this optimal for distributing
page files? (My system is currently stable.)

SG
--
AMD 64 3000+
Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
ATI 9800 Pro
Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
Maxtor 60 gb SATA
Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously shegeek72 <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
> I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system) to use a 1 GB
> paging file on each of my two HDs. Is this optimal for distributing
> page files? (My system is currently stable.)

There are those that say page files should be as large as the RAM.
I say that pageing more than 200MB or so takes far too long, so
forget that size guideline.

Pageing to two or more drives is only helful if they are not
priortized. No idea what Windows does. Linux prioritizes, so
there is no benefit.

Arno

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On 12 Aug 2005 13:07:02 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage ,
Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> in <3m3l7mF15400jU1@individual.net>
wrote:

>Previously shegeek72 <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
>> I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system) to use a 1 GB
>> paging file on each of my two HDs. Is this optimal for distributing
>> page files? (My system is currently stable.)
>
>There are those that say page files should be as large as the RAM.

I used to see advice that said that the paging file should be twice
the size of the ram. That always seemed so odd to me. For a give usage
the more RAM, the smaller the paging file. I can imagine a system
where it was more efficient if the size of the page file was somehow
related to the size of the RAM, but I don't know of any actual systems
where that it meaningful.

>I say that pageing more than 200MB or so takes far too long, so
>forget that size guideline.

The page file should be big enough so you don't run out of memory and
the system should degrade gracefully so you can fix it if it runs out
of page space.

>Pageing to two or more drives is only helful if they are not
>priortized. No idea what Windows does. Linux prioritizes, so
>there is no benefit.
>
>Arno
--
Matt Silberstein

Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

Cliff on Cheers

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

LOL

Great beer-drinker logic.

SG

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

shegeek72 <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote

> I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system)
> to use a 1 GB paging file on each of my two HDs.

Time to get a new tech.

> Is this optimal for distributing page files?

Nope.

> (My system is currently stable.)

Ignore that fool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1123833274.900411.16420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system) to use a 1 GB
> paging file on each of my two HDs. Is this optimal for distributing
> page files? (My system is currently stable.)

(I assume you have Windows XP)

I think the idea is to avoid too many head moves when loading or writing
several pages in a row. In that case, the breakdown 50-50 seems appropriate
if the two HDs have equivalent performance, actually access time. If not,
the greater part, or even the totality, of the pagefile should be on the
faster HD.

What you can do is to use a dedicated partition for the pagefile, formatted
in FAT with a cluster size of 4K. The simpler, the better.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

X-No-Archive: yes

On 12 Aug 2005 00:54:34 -0700, "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:

>AMD 64 3000+
>Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
>2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
>ATI 9800 Pro
>Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
>Maxtor 60 gb SATA
>Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
>Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
>Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light

What operating system?

My page file size is zero. The machine uses all of available memory
and only, if ever there is more need it creates a page file. And that
has never happened in all these years.

With lots of memory no one needs page file, a concept suitable for the
64k days (Remember Bill's famous statement?).

Using all of memory makes machine work faster than using a page file.

By the way I use Win98 (been to SE, XP and came back )

--
Sandy Archer
Reply to newsgroups only

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:41:42 +0000, Ardent <iam@here.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>On 12 Aug 2005 00:54:34 -0700, "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>AMD 64 3000+
>>Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
>>2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
>>ATI 9800 Pro
>>Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
>>Maxtor 60 gb SATA
>>Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
>>Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
>>Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light
>
>What operating system?
>
>My page file size is zero. The machine uses all of available memory
>and only, if ever there is more need it creates a page file. And that
>has never happened in all these years.
>
>With lots of memory no one needs page file, a concept suitable for the
>64k days (Remember Bill's famous statement?).
>
>Using all of memory makes machine work faster than using a page file.
>
>By the way I use Win98 (been to SE, XP and came back )


Obvoiusly not a Photoshop user. It just don't work without a PF
available

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:27:09 +0100, Andy Lee <andy.lee@siemens.com>
wrote:


>Obvoiusly not a Photoshop user. It just don't work without a PF
>available

Some games don't work without a PF available either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Andy Lee wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:41:42 +0000, Ardent <iam@here.com> wrote:
>
>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>>On 12 Aug 2005 00:54:34 -0700, "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
>>
>>>AMD 64 3000+
>>>Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
>>>2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
>>>ATI 9800 Pro
>>>Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
>>>Maxtor 60 gb SATA
>>>Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
>>>Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
>>>Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light
>>
>>What operating system?
>>
>>My page file size is zero. The machine uses all of available memory
>>and only, if ever there is more need it creates a page file. And that
>>has never happened in all these years.
>>
>>With lots of memory no one needs page file, a concept suitable for the
>>64k days (Remember Bill's famous statement?).
>>
>>Using all of memory makes machine work faster than using a page file.
>>
>>By the way I use Win98 (been to SE, XP and came back )
>
>
> Obvoiusly not a Photoshop user. It just don't work without a PF
> available

Photoshop is a special case. It has its own page file that has nothing to
do with the system page file. More ludicrous Adobe design.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:34:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

>Andy Lee wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:41:42 +0000, Ardent <iam@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>
>>>On 12 Aug 2005 00:54:34 -0700, "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>AMD 64 3000+
>>>>Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
>>>>2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
>>>>ATI 9800 Pro
>>>>Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
>>>>Maxtor 60 gb SATA
>>>>Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
>>>>Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
>>>>Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light
>>>
>>>What operating system?
>>>
>>>My page file size is zero. The machine uses all of available memory
>>>and only, if ever there is more need it creates a page file. And that
>>>has never happened in all these years.
>>>
>>>With lots of memory no one needs page file, a concept suitable for the
>>>64k days (Remember Bill's famous statement?).
>>>
>>>Using all of memory makes machine work faster than using a page file.
>>>
>>>By the way I use Win98 (been to SE, XP and came back )
>>
>>
>> Obvoiusly not a Photoshop user. It just don't work without a PF
>> available
>
>Photoshop is a special case. It has its own page file that has nothing to
>do with the system page file. More ludicrous Adobe design.

The PF you refer to is called the "scratch pad" or undo file I
believe. I will try installing it again without the System page file I
seem to recall it threw a fit when I tried that before but it's been
awhile since then and may be my memory is not perfect (probably not)
Indeed it also gets screwed if you try installing it to other than
it's default directory or drive other than C: for some reason. Adobe
are a bit strange like that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Andy Lee wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:34:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Andy Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:41:42 +0000, Ardent <iam@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>>
>>>>On 12 Aug 2005 00:54:34 -0700, "shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>AMD 64 3000+
>>>>>Gigabyte Triton K8 G8-K8NS
>>>>>2 gb Kingston dual-channel RAM
>>>>>ATI 9800 Pro
>>>>>Proview 17" LCD/KDS 19" CRT monitors
>>>>>Maxtor 60 gb SATA
>>>>>Western Digital 80 gb (cache/backup)
>>>>>Samsung DVD-ROM (I know, I need a burner)
>>>>>Future ATX case, 350W, 7 fans, cold light
>>>>
>>>>What operating system?
>>>>
>>>>My page file size is zero. The machine uses all of available memory
>>>>and only, if ever there is more need it creates a page file. And that
>>>>has never happened in all these years.
>>>>
>>>>With lots of memory no one needs page file, a concept suitable for the
>>>>64k days (Remember Bill's famous statement?).
>>>>
>>>>Using all of memory makes machine work faster than using a page file.
>>>>
>>>>By the way I use Win98 (been to SE, XP and came back )
>>>
>>>
>>> Obvoiusly not a Photoshop user. It just don't work without a PF
>>> available
>>
>>Photoshop is a special case. It has its own page file that has nothing to
>>do with the system page file. More ludicrous Adobe design.
>
> The PF you refer to is called the "scratch pad" or undo file I
> believe. I will try installing it again without the System page file I
> seem to recall it threw a fit when I tried that before but it's been
> awhile since then and may be my memory is not perfect (probably not)
> Indeed it also gets screwed if you try installing it to other than
> it's default directory or drive other than C: for some reason. Adobe
> are a bit strange like that.

Like to set their own standards and show leadership. Not my favorite
company.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"shegeek72" <sweepster@ev1.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1123833274.900411.16420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

> I was advised by a computer tech (who upgraded my system) to use a 1 GB
> paging file on each of my two HDs. Is this optimal for distributing
> page files? (My system is currently stable.)

See also the help of Windows XP.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Free technical support at : http://www.protonic.com/