I tried to set "No paging file" in the advanced menu of system settings (Windows Vista 32-bit). I rebooted the PC. However the Peformance tab of Windows Task Manager shows
Page File: 2314M / 3475M
Why is this so? I wanted to set no paging file because my idea was to setup a RAMdisk and use that for the paging file.
My system specs are in my sig.
I thought when you have to Set "No Paging File" in Virtual Memory may be this settings are not Saved.you can try again this setting through this steps -:
-->> go to START >> Control Panel >> System >> Advanced System Settings >> in Performance Tab click on Settings >> go to Advanced option >> Change >> Click on No Paging File >> Click on Set >> OK >> Apply >> OK .
Do these Settings after that Reboot your System and then Check Performance in Task Manager.
-PF Usage as reported in task manager in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 is -actually the system commit total. This number represents potential page file usage, not -actual page file usage. It is how much page file space would be used if all the private -committed virtual memory in the system had to be paged out all at once.
-The task manager ;what it calls “pagefile usage” is actually the system commit charge -(the total number of committed pages in the system). It can grow as high as the current -commit limit, which is roughly the sum of all pagefiles and RAM .
-Page file usage is ,the amount of Committed Bytes – I.e. the amount of memory that -applications have asked to be backed by the page file. If the page files are big enough to -cover this then there is no problem. Only when Committed Bytes approaches RAM size -will you see any memory pressure that results in physical paging.
-Memory: Committed Bytes
now you see, you can have pagefile set to 0, I have this setting confirmed, but the page file usage is still reported in the task manager, its only showing the applications requesting page file, not actual page file usage. source:
You CAN'T get rid of the Windows virtual memory subsystem; it always exists. All data allocation is done in terms of VIRTUAL memory addresses, which are then mapped to physical RAM by the OS.
When you set the swap file size to 0, all this does is force a 1:1 correlation between physical and virtual addresses. It does NOT get rid of Virtual Memory usage.
So in your case, the size of the swap file will ALWAYS be the size of all the data currently in RAM.
As an aside, you end up using MORE RAM by tuning off the swap file. When Virtual Memory is used, if a resource is created but not allocated [for instance, a 100 element array with no elements filled with data], it is not put into RAM until after the allocation is done. With the swap file disabled, however, because all Virtual Addresses must be mapped to exactly one Physical Address, that unused data gets put into RAM, even if it isn't being used yet. As such, by turning off the swap file, you end up using more RAM then you would with it enabled, which usually costs more performance then you gained by disabling the swap file in the first place.
As such, there is VERY little reason to ever disable the swap file, even if you had ungodly amounts of RAM.