Where put paging file?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

I have a C: and a D: drive. I'd like to put my pagefile on D: -- is
that ok? Can I completely eliminate the one on C:?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

"Rick C." <blue--nospam--.heron3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfb7590692918989898e2@msnews.microsoft.com...
>I have a C: and a D: drive. I'd like to put my pagefile on D: -- is
> that ok?

Yes .. and can be used thus to enhance performance if the drives are
seperate disks and not just partitions on the same device

refer to http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm

> Can I completely eliminate the one on C:?

yes


--
Steve Parry BA (Hons) MCP MVP

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Steve Parry [MVP] wrote:

> "Rick C." <blue--nospam--.heron3@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cfb7590692918989898e2@msnews.microsoft.com...
>
>>I have a C: and a D: drive. I'd like to put my pagefile on D: -- is
>>that ok?
>
>
> Yes .. and can be used thus to enhance performance if the drives are
> seperate disks and not just partitions on the same device
>
> refer to http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm
>
>
>>Can I completely eliminate the one on C:?
>
>
> yes
>
>
The right thing to do is install enough memory that the swap file is not
used at all. The large cache that Windows implements makes the effect
minimal anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

One other thing: If you don't have a pagefile on C:, or it is too small, you
won't get a dump file in case of a fatal error (blue screen).
--
Chau chau,

Pascalos


"William W. Plummer" wrote:

> Steve Parry [MVP] wrote:
>
> > "Rick C." <blue--nospam--.heron3@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1cfb7590692918989898e2@msnews.microsoft.com...
> >
> >>I have a C: and a D: drive. I'd like to put my pagefile on D: -- is
> >>that ok?
> >
> >
> > Yes .. and can be used thus to enhance performance if the drives are
> > seperate disks and not just partitions on the same device
> >
> > refer to http://www.petri.co.il/pagefile_optimization.htm
> >
> >
> >>Can I completely eliminate the one on C:?
> >
> >
> > yes
> >
> >
> The right thing to do is install enough memory that the swap file is not
> used at all. The large cache that Windows implements makes the effect
> minimal anyway.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

William W. Plummer wrote:

> The right thing to do is install enough memory that the swap file is not
> used at all. The large cache that Windows implements makes the effect
> minimal anyway.

I didn't think it was possible not to use the pagefile at all. I mean I have
1GB of RAM in my workstation and it's still using 322MB of page file, or so
task manager states. I really do not have much open at this point either.

--
-=SW=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

That 322MB (pagefile usage) actually means: this memory CAN be paged out if
you are running out of memory. Usually most of it will still be in RAM.

There is no easy way to calculate the size of a paging file.

In worst case the pagefile has to be at least the maximum size of all the
Virtual Memory in use (Commit Charge Peak). (Thanks to David Solomon.)

In NT4 and W2000 you can configure "no pagefile", but still 20MB will be
allocated. As of XP the pagefile really can be zero.

--
Chau chau,

Pascalos


"SWalters" wrote:

> William W. Plummer wrote:
>
> > The right thing to do is install enough memory that the swap file is not
> > used at all. The large cache that Windows implements makes the effect
> > minimal anyway.
>
> I didn't think it was possible not to use the pagefile at all. I mean I have
> 1GB of RAM in my workstation and it's still using 322MB of page file, or so
> task manager states. I really do not have much open at this point either.
>
> --
> -=SW=-
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

Pascal Damman wrote:

>That 322MB (pagefile usage) actually means: this memory CAN be paged out if
>you are running out of memory. Usually most of it will still be in RAM.
>
>There is no easy way to calculate the size of a paging file.
>
>In worst case the pagefile has to be at least the maximum size of all the
>Virtual Memory in use (Commit Charge Peak). (Thanks to David Solomon.)
>
>In NT4 and W2000 you can configure "no pagefile", but still 20MB will be
>allocated. As of XP the pagefile really can be zero.
>
>
>

I'm running a gig of ram and an 80 gig HD. With no programs running at
all, I have an over 900 meg pagefile, and it does get used. I should be
able to run with none, but there it is gobbling up space, slowing things
down, and showing what a silly OS looks like. Like everything else
microsopht, the OS makes assumptions which are invalid. (And yes, if
games, my primary purpose for computers, were mostly released early for
linux I would have dumped ms well over a decade ago.)


--
A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is indistinguishable from paranoia.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

"Rick C." <blue--nospam--.heron3@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfb7590692918989898e2@msnews.microsoft.com...
> I have a C: and a D: drive. I'd like to put my pagefile on D: -- is
> that ok? Can I completely eliminate the one on C:?

Yes to both questions - just give it a try!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

=?Utf-8?B?UGFzY2FsIERhbW1hbg==?= wrote:

> That 322MB (pagefile usage) actually means: this memory CAN be paged out
> if you are running out of memory. Usually most of it will still be in
> RAM.
>
> There is no easy way to calculate the size of a paging file.
>
> In worst case the pagefile has to be at least the maximum size of all
> the Virtual Memory in use (Commit Charge Peak). (Thanks to David
> Solomon.)
>
> In NT4 and W2000 you can configure "no pagefile", but still 20MB will be
> allocated. As of XP the pagefile really can be zero.

Interesting...thanks for the info.

--
-=SW=-

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

You can write thousands of posts of comparisons between Windows and Linux,
and you'll never get to a conclusion. Maybe there is something on you system
not well configured. If you have 1 GB of RAM, not using all of it, then you
have no need to configure a pagefile. With a pagefile you can "use" more than
your 1GB. But if you don't need it, it's OK to have no pagefile.
Like stated earlier, you are probably not using that 900MBs. You have to
interpret the numbers in Task Manager differently.

Actually, I use XP with 1GB, VMWare GSX and other software simultaneously
and no pagefile. No problems.


--
Chau chau,

Pascalos


"Quaestor" wrote:

> Pascal Damman wrote:
>
> >That 322MB (pagefile usage) actually means: this memory CAN be paged out if
> >you are running out of memory. Usually most of it will still be in RAM.
> >
> >There is no easy way to calculate the size of a paging file.
> >
> >In worst case the pagefile has to be at least the maximum size of all the
> >Virtual Memory in use (Commit Charge Peak). (Thanks to David Solomon.)
> >
> >In NT4 and W2000 you can configure "no pagefile", but still 20MB will be
> >allocated. As of XP the pagefile really can be zero.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'm running a gig of ram and an 80 gig HD. With no programs running at
> all, I have an over 900 meg pagefile, and it does get used. I should be
> able to run with none, but there it is gobbling up space, slowing things
> down, and showing what a silly OS looks like. Like everything else
> microsopht, the OS makes assumptions which are invalid. (And yes, if
> games, my primary purpose for computers, were mostly released early for
> linux I would have dumped ms well over a decade ago.)
>
>
> --
> A sufficiently advanced computer network protective attitude is indistinguishable from paranoia.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.general (More info?)

The user is the the only silly thing on that computer.

Quaestor wrote:


>
> I'm running a gig of ram and an 80 gig HD. With no programs running at
> all, I have an over 900 meg pagefile, and it does get used. I should be
> able to run with none, but there it is gobbling up space, slowing things
> down, and showing what a silly OS looks like. Like everything else
> microsopht, the OS makes assumptions which are invalid. (And yes, if
> games, my primary purpose for computers, were mostly released early for
> linux I would have dumped ms well over a decade ago.)
>
>